HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-05-20; 8-a - Minutes1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:November 5, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: Minutes
DEPARTMENT: Board of County Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board,
919-245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Interim Clerk to
the Board as listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board’s
proceedings.
September 24, 2020 Virtual Joint Meeting with BOCC-Boards of Education
October 6, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting
October 8, 2020 Virtual Work Session
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
ATTACHMENT 1 1
2
DRAFT 3
MINUTES 4
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION 6
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION 7
VIRTUAL MEETNG 8
SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 9
7:00 p.m. 10
11
BOCC / Board of Education Virtual Joint Meeting 12
13
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a virtual joint meeting with the Chapel Hill-14
Carrboro City Schools Board of Education and Orange County Schools Board of Education on 15
Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 16
17
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual 18
Joint Meeting on September 24, 2020 utilizing Zoom. Members of the Board of 19
Commissioners and Boards of Education participated in the meeting remotely. As in 20
prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and listen to the meeting via live 21
streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County 22
Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 23
24
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and 25
Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee 26
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE 27
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: NONE 28
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENT: Chair Mary Ann Wolf, Vice 29
Chair Amy Fowler, and Board of Education Members Joal Broun, Rani Dasi, Deon Temne, 30
Ashton Powell, Jillian LaSerna 31
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION ABSENT: NONE 32
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENT: Chair Hillary MacKenzie, Vice Chair 33
Brenda Stephens, and Board of Education Members Will Atherton, Carrie Doyle, Bonnie 34
Hauser, Jennifer More, Sarah Smylie 35
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ABSENT: NONE 36
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley; Deputy County Manager 37
Travis Myren; Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder; and Assistant Deputy Clerk II Allen 38
Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 39
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS (CHCCS) STAFF PRESENT: Interim Superintendent 40
Dr. Jim Causby, Assistant Superintendent Support Services Patrick Abele; Jessica O’ Donovan, 41
Assistant Superintendent Instructional Services Division; Charlos Spanks, Senior Executive 42
Director, Student Services; Erica Newkirk, Senior Executive Director, Human Resources; 43
Jonathan Scott, Interim Chief Financial Officer; Lee Williams, Executive Director, Equity and 44
Inclusion; Jeff Nash, Public Information Officer; Misti Williams, Senior Executive Director for 45
Leadership and Strategy 46
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS (OCS) STAFF PRESENT: Superintendent Dr. Monique Felder; 47
Deputy Superintendent Dr. Kathleen Dawson; Melany Stowe; Public Information and 48
Community Engagement Officer; Sharita Cobb, Director of Student Services; Dr. Dannie 49
2
Williams, Chief Operations Officer; Dr. Dena Keeling, Chief Equity Officer; Sara Pitts, Director of 1
Environmental Health and Safety; and Rhonda Rath, CFO. 2
3
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m., and asked for a Roll Call. 4
5
Welcome and Opening Remarks 6
Chair Rich thanked the schools and staff for offering a sound basic education to students 7
in Orange County. She said decisions made today will affect tomorrow, and there is no way to 8
please everyone. She said the New York Times said 12 million children in America are without 9
technology services to continue educational opportunities. She said broadband has been an 10
issue on which the County has been working for several years, and is an example of top down 11
policy that is not effective. She said the County will aid Orange County Schools (OCS) in 12
purchasing 1000 additional hotspots. 13
Chair Rich said both districts have created learning centers for students who do not have 14
technology services or family at home to help in the learning process. 15
Mary Ann Wolfe expressed appreciation for the opportunity to collaborate. She said 16
Schools are the hub of the community, which has never been more clear than in this time. She 17
said equity has never been more important, and it goes beyond the issue of broadband. She 18
said wonderful work has been done through the Food for Students program, for food insecurity, 19
as well as supporting students academically, socially and emotionally. She said she is an 20
eternal optimist, and believes this pandemic will end. She said once it does there will be new 21
challenges. 22
Mary Ann Wolfe expressed gratitude for the life of Euzelle Smith, former educator and 23
namesake of Smith Middle School, who passed away recently. She said she was great 24
reminder of this community’s values. 25
26
Jennifer Moore and Commissioner Marcoplos joined the meeting at 7:13 p.m. 27
28
Hillary MacKenzie thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for the 29
opportunity to meet collaboratively to best meet the needs of students and families. She said 30
the community is facing unprecedented needs due to the pandemic, but is also making great 31
strides, as the nation is reckoning with deep issues of racism. 32
33
1. COVID Updates 34
a. School reopening 35
b. Supervised Learning Lab update 36
c. Technology challenges – internet accessibility and costs 37
d. Scientific Analyzing Board 38
e. Food insecurities – Food distribution update 39
f. Homelessness 40
g. School Nurses 41
42
Dr. Monique Felder said the safety of students and staff is the top priority in OCS. She 43
said the goal is to have a safe return to in person learning. She said the OCS Board of 44
Education established a COVID-19 metrics taskforce. She said the taskforce is comprised of a 45
broad spectrum of people, and the purpose of the taskforce is to monitor trends and follow 46
metrics. She said the School Board will be monitoring whether to return to in person instruction. 47
3
She said currently the district is in a plan C, but plan B would be a hybrid model with both 1
remote and in person instruction. She said there will always be a fully virtual option, and if OCS 2
does move to plan B, there would be strict adherence to all social distancing protocol. 3
Melany Stowe said the needs of parents and students continue to drive OCS. She said 4
virtual schooling is particularly daunting to those who face various inequities, and supervised 5
learning labs are the new necessary adaptation of OCS. She said Orange County Schools has 6
facilitated a supervised learning lab for a month in partnership with the YMCA, and a second 7
learning lab started this week in partnership with Pleasant Green United Methodist Church. She 8
said equity is a district priority, and the district sought to insure that the learning labs are 9
accessible to all. She said there are 3 different payment options, including a reasonable rate of 10
$10/week thanks to an anonymous donor. She said the second lab has given priority to 11
students that are homeless or in foster care. She said OCS is using the before and after school 12
fund balance to provide this service at no cost, including transportation. She said there is an 13
upcoming service that will be offered in an actual school. 14
Melany Stowe said technology is an ongoing need, and OCS has opened two Internet 15
hubs, which are located at schools near the greatest areas of need. She said families can sign 16
up, and come into the buildings so that there is access to bathrooms, as well appropriate air 17
temperatures. She said sitting in a car parked to access Internet service is not necessarily 18
equitable, and thus OCS has responded accordingly. She said staff will continue to work 19
towards plan B, and the needs will continue until all students can be back in school full time. 20
Dr. Kathleen Dawson said access to bathrooms, HVAC, and safety is basic human 21
rights. She expressed thanks to the BOCC for its support and willingness to fund the additional 22
hotspots. She said Orange County Schools purchased 500 hotspots in the spring, have 23
purchased 400 this fall, and have 600 more on order to meet the needs of their families. She 24
said a question was raised about where the need was coming from and why. She said the 25
quality of service was lacking, and families are trying to do what they can, but families have 26
multiple users on the bandwidth trying to work and learn. She said there are areas in the 27
community where even a hotspot will not help. She said 40% of OCS families qualify for free 28
and reduced lunch, and it is unrealistic to think these families can transport children to the 29
schools for Internet access. She said a lot of families rely on the district’s services. She said 30
the district has purchased flash drives to download learning materials in order to support the 31
needs of their students. She said OCS has worked on making secondary school parking lots 32
Wi-Fi hotspots, and is working on doing the same for elementary school parking lots. She said 33
OCS is also seeking to purchase teacher devices, as many were incompatible for remote 34
learning. She said an expected delivery date for Chrome books was unknown. She said OCS is 35
renting devices to insure all children have access, which costs over $90,000 and webcams for 36
teacher laptops were over $35,000. She said once the district is able to transition to plan B, 37
there will still be remote learning students, and teachers will have to take on that dual 38
instruction, which will require setup technology. She said the costs are enormous, and Covid 39
has required all of this in such a rapid manner. She said OCS has spent over $954,000 since 40
Covid hit, which does not include the previously scheduled laptop refresh. She said the biggest 41
long term issue is Internet access for all. 42
Dr. Monique Felder introduced the scientific analyzing boards (ABC science 43
collaborative), which is a partnership between OCS, CHCCS, Duke and UNC. She said the 44
purpose of these boards is pair schools, medical and scientific professionals to help to keep 45
students and staff safe. She said there are weekly COVID-19 webinars and webinar topics 46
4
including masks, exceptional children, flu, and ventilation. She said the ABC collaborative is 1
helping Orange County Schools with developing detailed plans. 2
Sherita Cobb said OCS has been working diligently on food insecurities, and as of 3
September 22, Orange County Schools had given out 204,892 breakfast and lunch 4
combinations, and 35,441 supplemental food boxes to OCS students. She said 13 different 5
sites have been used since March to be able to give out those food items. She said the district 6
continues the backpack buddies, which provides food support for weekend meals. She said 7
OCS has ~120 homeless (McKinney-Vento) students. She said these students are supported 8
with food boxes and other food/housing programs. She said OCS is very thankful to have 9
school nurses in every school. She said the nurses are working on contact tracing, preparing 10
isolation rooms, training and support, protocol and procedures for getting children back into 11
school. She said OCS is proposing to create a School Safety Task Force, which would focus on 12
several issues including school resource officers (SRO). She said SROs have been in OCS 13
since 1992, and the District works with the Orange County Sheriff’s office on many issues, 14
including a variety of training. She said OCS and the Sheriff are looking at the memorandum of 15
understanding to insure that this partnership is the most effective that it can be. 16
Commissioner McKee thanked County staff for finding funding for additional hotspots, 17
and said there was a backlog in OCS, and a small need in CHCCS. He said he petitioned the 18
County to pick up the cost of this need, and asked if the County would form a task force to look 19
into this issue. He said there are families with no service, and hotspots will not help. He said 20
600 hotspots are still needed, and asked if more hotspots will be needed. 21
Dr. Monique Felder said the district is finding the needs continue to mount, as many 22
family circumstances are changing, as well as staff requesting hotspots. She said many 23
families need multiple hotspots, as one is not enough to support a family. 24
Commissioner Dorosin thanked OCS for a great presentation. He said each district will 25
make its own decision around School Resource Officers. He asked if the taskforce could be 26
comprised of interlocking membership, so that three groups are not working in silos on the same 27
issue. He said he would like to see where there are differences and similarities, and begin to 28
reconcile issues. 29
Dr. Monique Felder said OCS could consider looking at that proposal. She said there 30
are areas of overlap, as well as unique areas for each district. 31
Chair Rich said the Commissioners have been working on broadband for years. She 32
said the lack of success is not due to a lack of priority, but rather the state legislature is the hold 33
up. She said until broadband is a utility, and available to every single person who wants it, the 34
BOCC’s hands are tied. She said this issue is not new and the Commissioners understand the 35
disparities. She said it has proved hard to make progress over the past four years. 36
Commissioner Price said she appreciated the work with homeless students, and asked if 37
the situation is getting worse. 38
Dr. Monique Felder said she will defer to Sherita Cobb to answer, but the district is 39
finding that families are coming together to live in the same dwelling. 40
Sherita Cobb said the district has lost a few students, but several homeless students 41
have doubled up with friends and families to try and remain in the area. 42
Commissioner Price asked if OCS is currently working with the Eviction Diversion 43
program in the County. 44
Sherita Cobb said yes, the district’s social workers utilize that program. 45
Commissioner McKee echoed Chair Rich’s comments as far as broadband. He said he 46
is tired of waiting and expecting the same results. He said the petition that was brought forward 47
5
has a $30 million dollar price tag. He said this is not a short-term solution. He said he was not 1
aware of data caps on school service plans, and he asked if carriers are putting throttling in 2
place. 3
Dr. Kathleen Dawson said OCS’s plan with Verizon is for unlimited data, and no 4
throttling. 5
Commissioner McKee applauded the District’s ability to open learning centers. He 6
asked if the District has considered opening school libraries. 7
Dr. Monique Felder said OCS opened school cafeterias. 8
Commissioner McKee asked if an update could be given on both districts’ unallocated 9
fund balance. 10
Chair Rich said to wait until the budget portion of the meeting for this question. 11
Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin that the conversations 12
regarding SROs should involve both districts, and asked if OCS is interested in defunding this 13
program, which has historically been quite successful in OCS. 14
Hillary MacKenzie said the focus of the taskforce was not a specific goal. She said OCS 15
is taking this moment to assess this program, including the lived experiences of students and 16
faculty. She said Sheriff Blackwood is in agreement with this assessment. 17
Commissioner McKee asked if defunding SROs has been considered. 18
Hillary MacKenzie said not that she was aware. 19
Commissioner McKee said he lives in northern Orange County, and knows many, many 20
residents there are very supportive of SROs in the schools. 21
Commissioner Bedford asked if OCS has access to testing, and if the district is relying 22
on temperature testing or parent reporting to keep track of children. 23
Melany Stowe said the District is working with the Orange County Health Department 24
and other stakeholders. She said all NCDHHS guidelines are being followed, including signage 25
and assessment forms. She said a student cannot participate in any way if they have 26
symptoms of any kind, or have been exposed to someone with symptoms of any kind. 27
Bonnie Hauser said she appreciates the County’s efforts regarding Internet access. She 28
said there are over 5,000 families who do not have access to broadband, and the hotspots 29
program has made a huge difference. She said more students could be reached with more 30
tower infrastructure. 31
Chair Rich introduced Dr. Jim Causby. 32
Dr. Jim Causby said both districts are two of the best. He said CHCCS is currently 33
committed to virtual learning for the first semester; however, this is periodically reviewed. He 34
said he was surprised at the Governor allowing K-5 schools to move back to in-person learning. 35
He said he received many emails about not returning to in-person learning, and only 2 in favor 36
of it. He said CHCCS is monitoring the metrics to follow the CDC’s guidelines and advice from 37
ABC science collaborative. 38
Dr. Jim Causby said, at this time, he would not recommend plan A, and plan B would 39
take some work to be ready. He said the virtual plan is not perfect, but the Chapel Hill Carrboro 40
City Schools has much to be proud of. He said the youngest students are having the hardest 41
time with virtual learning, as well as those students requiring adaptive curriculums. He said 42
families with young children are a priority for the district, as well as finding childcare. He said 43
the CHCCS Board will look at this issue again in early October. 44
Dr. Jim Causby said CHCCS has two scholastic learning centers in partnership with the 45
YMCA, and CHCCS has tried to keep students out of the school buildings. He said there are 46
about 100 students involved, with a 1:10 staff to student ratio. He said temperatures are 47
6
checked, and so far there have been no outbreaks. He said meals and transportation are 1
provided for each center. He said a third center will be opening, with CHCCS Board approval, 2
on October 1st at the University United Methodist Church, which can take about 50 students. He 3
said students that are involved in these programs have an average state test score of 2.5 or 4
lower. 5
Dr. Jim Causby said staff has serious concerns around safety when considering 6
returning to school. He said the district is trying to educate staff, and holding science 7
collaborative webinars. He said CHCCS is opening smaller programs to help staff see that 8
things can happen safely if precautions are in place, including the road drivers education 9
program. He said CHCCS is also ready to open up for athletics. 10
Dr. Jim Causby said the SNAC committee met this week, and has exciting ideas. He 11
said Dr. Felder gave a wonderful explanation of the Science Collaborative, and the collaborative 12
has more than 50 members. He said CHCCS jumped on child nutrition issues a long time 13
before he re-joined the district, but he wanted to brag on that concern. He said the District 14
jumped on grants, and 600,000 meals have been distributed to students and families, providing 15
breakfast, lunch, and food for weekends. 16
Charlos Banks said 2019-2020 data has 78 CHCCS students experiencing homeless 17
with the majority coming from the elementary level; 74% are African American; 10% are 18
Caucasian; and less than 10% Latino and Asian. She said social workers are keeping track of 19
these students and connecting them to resources and help. 20
Charlos Banks said Dr. Causby and the Public School Foundation made a call to the 21
community and raised $100,000 to help students and families secure housing, and being safe 22
while practicing remote learning. She said CHCCS received a McKinney-Ventos 3-year grant of 23
$15,000 per year. She said due to the school closure, the district could not follow through with 24
traditional plans, but is working on other options. 25
Charlos Banks said CHCCS has 21 fulltime school nurses who have been at the 26
forefront during this health pandemic. She said regular health items, such as immunizations 27
and health screenings, still need to be maintained. She said nurses are still working with 28
students to manage chronic conditions, doing wellness checks at the learning labs, and 29
partnering with the Health Department on all manner of things. 30
Dr. Jim Causby said the CHCCS Board of Education was wise to budget and order 31
Chrome books and iPads for students very early on. He said many systems across the State 32
are waiting on technology. He said Wake County Schools is waiting on 18,000 pieces of 33
equipment. He said CHCCS has issued 12,000 devices, 1,400 hotspots and an additional 270 34
hotspots for staff. He said CHCCS does not have the same connectivity issues as OCS, but 35
there are some tricky spots. He said CHCCS has a contract with T-Mobile, with no data caps or 36
throttling. He said some areas do not have T-Mobile service, and AT&T has provided hotpsots. 37
He said if virtual learning continues into the next year, CHCCS would need to rethink its 38
structure. He said technology staff is supporting far more devices than normal, and have 39
become the tech support for all families in the district. He said at some point in time the Board 40
would have to update the technology department. 41
Dr. Jim Causby said SROs have been received both positively and negatively. He said 42
the CHCCS Board has charged him with creating a taskforce to look at the issue, which should 43
begin meeting by the middle of October. He said the taskforce will look at data, expenditures, 44
student/staff experience, etc. He said the taskforce will meet as many times as necessary, and 45
is not charged with reaching any particular goal. He said CHCCS collaborates with OCS in 46
7
many things, but noted that the two districts are very different, and he would recommend 1
maintaining two separate task forces that will share information with each other. 2
Chair Rich said during School Collaboration meetings staff discussed having a County 3
Commissioner on that taskforce. 4
Dr. Jim Causby asked if the BOCC would let him know of any pertinent stakeholders that 5
should be included in the task force. 6
Mary Ann Wolf thanked the CHCCS BOE for its work, and thanked the Commissioners 7
for approving the capital lease for technology back in May. She said this made a huge 8
difference. 9
Chair Rich said the Commissioners did the same thing for Orange County Schools. 10
Commissioner McKee said he appreciated CHCCS being proactive with technology and 11
connectivity issues. He said he knows connectivity is better in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, but his 12
petition for funding to address the needs is not intended to be exclusive to OCS. He said if 13
CHCCS has needs, he asked that they be expressed to the County Manager. 14
Dr. Jim Causby said County staff has reached out, and CHCCS will certainly take funds, 15
but did not want to do so when they were not needed. 16
Chair Rich expressed thanks to both districts. 17
18
19
Slide #1 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Slide #2 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Slide #3 42
43
44
45
8
1
2
3
4
5
Slide #4 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Slide #5 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Slide #6 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Slide #7 39
40
41
42
43
9
1
2
3
4
5
Slide #8 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Slide #9 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Slide #10 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Slide #11 38
39
40
41
42
43
10
1
2
3
4
5
Slide #12 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Slide #13 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Slide #14 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Slide #15 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
11
1
2
3
4
5
2. School Resource Officers – task forces – covered above as part of #1 6
7
Slide #17 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
3. Budget 16
a. CARES spending 17
b. 2016 Bond Project 18
19
Jonathan Scott covered the following information: 20
21
Slide #18 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Slide #19 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Slide #20 40
41
42
43
44
12
1
2
3
4
Slide #21 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Commissioner Bedford asked if the School districts have been able to keep everyone 15
employed, or if layoffs are happening. She also asked if Project Jumpstart was held virtually, or 16
in person. 17
Dr. Jim Causby said CHCCS has not laid anyone off. 18
Jessica O’Donovan said Summer Jumpstart was entirely virtual in July. She said staff 19
served students in groups of 5 or less, and sometimes individually. 20
Dr. Monique Felder said Orange County Schools has fortunately not had to layoff any 21
staff. 22
Patrick Abele reviewed the following information: 23
24
Slide #23 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Slide #24 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
13
1
Slide #25 2
3
4
5
6
Patrick Abele said CHCCS will schedule a walk-through for the Commissioners to see 7
the high school renovations. 8
9
Slide #26 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Slide #27 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Slide #28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Commissioner Marcoplos thanked CHCCS for the Philips Middle School update, and 38
asked when this work began. 39
Patrick Abele said temporary repairs began in late fall 2019, and the majority of the work 40
was done over the summer of this year. 41
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if all the work was done outside the building. 42
Patrick Abele said some work was done in the hallways (flooring, lockers, etc.). He said 43
there is some additional wall damage repairs to complete. 44
14
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the work had been completed in the summer 2019, 1
when funds were allocated, would it have prevented further damage. 2
Patrick Abele said any time water damage can be prevented is best. He said CHCCS 3
did not know about funding until July 1, and thus bids for projects cannot be received until that 4
time, which does not allow a timeline for work to be completed in the summer that funds are 5
allocated. He said the first step was to assess the need, which was done as soon as funds were 6
appropriated. 7
Commissioner Marcoplos said he does not understand why the District had to wait until 8
the County had appropriated funds, when the District has such a healthy fund balance that can 9
be tapped into, and knowing the County would back the district up at a later time. 10
Patrick Abele said he cannot answer that question. He said the project was identified, 11
assessed and remediation started in 2019, and he cannot attest to years past, as he was not in 12
the District. 13
Commissioner Marcoplos said this issue identifies the need for transparency between 14
the schools and the County. He said there should be a joint taskforce to look at school facility 15
maintenance issues to keep everyone informed and on task. He said these are very important 16
issues. 17
Commissioner McKee asked if the unallocated fund balance for both districts could be 18
identified. He said it seems these balances have been growing since Covid. 19
Jonathan Scott said the CHCCS made a very concerted effort to pull down unnecessary 20
spending. He said the CHCCS audit is not complete, but in June 2019 CHCC had roughly 11% 21
undesignated, unreserved balance. He said he anticipates this will go to 12.5%. He said it 22
would have been more, but CHCCS has to appropriate a good amount of funds this year. 23
Chair Rich asked if Orange County Schools wanted to present. 24
Rhonda Rath reviewed the following information: 25
26
2020-2021 CARES Funds Received 27
28
1 STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FUND – Cares Act 29
Fiscal
Year
LEA PRC Description Grant
Year
Position Month YTD Allotment
2020-21 680 121 CRF Summer Learning
Program
0 0 361,260.00
2020-21 680 122 CRF School Health
Support
0 0 47,259.00
2020-21 680 123 CRF Nondigital Resources 0 0 14,273.00
2020-21 680 124 CRF Student Computers
and Devices
0 0 115,873.00
2020-21 680 125 CRF School Nutrition 0 0 201,815.00
2020-21 680 126 CRF Personnel
Computers and Devices
0 0 23,787.00
2020-21 680 128 CRF Home and
Community WiFi
41,478.00
2020-21 680 132 CRF Exceptional Children 77,068.00
2020-21 680 135 CRF Cybersecurity 0 0 12,664.00
895,477.00
30
FEDERAL PROGRAMS 31
Current Allotment Revision #061 Total Revised Allotment 32
Fiscal
Year
LEA PRC PRC
Description
Grant
Year
Position Month Amount Position Month YTD
Allotment
2019-20 680 163 CARES
ACT 2020
2020 0 0 0 0 0 942,810.00
15
1
2020-2021 CARES Funds Anticipated 2
3
Description Anticipated Allotment
GEER – Specialized Instructional Support Personnel for
COVID-19 response
$204,104
GEER – Supplemental Instructional Services $77,209
Total Anticipated Funding $281,313
Grand Total CARES Act Relief Funds $2,119,600
4
COVID-19 EXPENDITURES 5
6
Funded Unfunded/Expended Unfunded/Potential
$115,873 – Student Devices $135,889 – School Nutrition $54,180 – Supervised Learning Labs
$23,787 – Personnel Devices $4,300 – Flash Drives $100,000 – docking stations
$41,478 – 400 hotspot devices $70,950 – 400 docking stations $90,000 – 600 additional hotspot
devices
$12,664 – Cybersecurity $90,300 – chromebook rental $81,000 – 600 additional hotspot service
$361,260 – Summer Learning $35,475 – webcams $85,000 – 660 teacher monitors
$77,209 – Instructional Support $106,900 – 900 hotspot service $350,000 – K iPad devices
$251,363 – Health Support $27,280 – Zoom lrg meetings $200,000 – Outside structures
$14,273 – Nondigital Resources $22,000 – Adobe Licenses $960,180 – subtotal
$201,815 – School Nutrition $400,000 – Edmentum
$77,068 – Exceptional Children $893,094 – Total Expended $ ????? – Building Ventilation
$254,700 – Curriculum Customization $ ????? – Additional staff for internet
hubs/cleaning
$600,000 – PPE and Sanitation
$38,110 – Private Schools Fair Share
$50,000 – Social/Emotional Support
$2,119,600 – Total Funds Available
7
COVID-19 EXPENDITURES 8
9
Funded Status
$115, 873 – Student Devices Encumbered student devices. Awaiting delivery
$23,787 – Personnel Devices Encumbered personnel devices. Awaiting delivery.
$41,478 – 400 hotpsot devices 400 hotspots received and distributed
$12,664 – Cybersecurity Plans in development for maximum utilization (professional
development)
$361,260 – Summer Learning $170K expended for summer services to 300 students. $45K
tutor support.
$77,209 – Instructional Support Plans in development for supplemental instructional support to
at-risk students, students in poverty, and students with
disabilities
$251,363 – Health Support Contract in negotiation for Social Emotional support
$14,273 – Nondigital Resources Workbooks encumbered for 2,150 elementary students
$201,815 – School Nutrition 227,240 meals prepared and delivered since March
$77,068 – Exceptional Children Supplies/materials; adaptive equipment; learning kits
$254,700 – Curriculum Customization $254K expended for curriculum blue prints
$600,000 – PPE and Sanitation $64K expended to date; remaining being encumbered as
supplies can be located
$38,110 – Private School Fair Share
$50,000 – Social/Emotional Support Contract in negotiation for Social Emotional support
$2,119,600 – Total Funds Available 40% committed and/or expended at August 31, 2020
10
11
Rhonda Rath said 40% of funding received by OCS expires in December. She said the 12
federal funds are more flexible. She said the OCS audit was ensuing, and the unassigned fund 13
balance will probably be $3.7 million. 14
16
Commissioner McKee said he is concerned for the social and emotional impacts on the 1
students, especially exceptional children. He encouraged the schools to use their unassigned 2
fund balances to address these needs. 3
Dr. Jim Causby said Commissioner McKee is preaching what he believes. He said there 4
is no question that children will be at least half a year behind. He said students cannot be 5
overloaded right now, but expanded summer offerings will be crucial. 6
Dr. Monique Felder agreed. She said this situation presents many challenges, especially 7
to those who were at risk prior to the pandemic. She said some OCS students are receiving 8
additional support, and more options are being pursued to increase this. She said some 9
students really need in person instruction. 10
Commissioner McKee said the County is a backstop, and encouraged the schools to not 11
sit on allocated funds, while needs are present. He said some students are going to be lost 12
completely. 13
Chair Rich said the districts are doing an excellent job. 14
Dr. Dannie Williams said the bond funds have afforded a complete office renovation of 15
Efland Cheeks Elementary School; safe vestibule entry points for remaining schools that lacked 16
them, allowing one way in and one way out; roofing and asbestos removal; installation of 17
security systems; mechanical renovations and designs for two schools; the Cedar Ridge 18
Classroom addition; and some summer projects that are nearing completion. 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. Equity 26
27
17
1
2
Slide #22 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Dr. Monique Felder said she has worked a number of places, and the equity work here is 14
so impressive and important for student learning. She said equity is the thread that runs 15
through the District’s work. 16
Dr. Dena Keeling said equity is a district priority, and everything the District does is 17
through an equity lens. She said before she was hired, the Board approved some joint funding, 18
and the district secured two 2-day trainings for district leadership, school counselors, career 19
advisors, and select teachers. She said these staff members went on to make up school based 20
equity teams in each school. She said the District cabinet and all school principals go through 21
monthly equity training, which has moved to an online platform due to Covid. She said the 22
district is working with Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) through a grant 23
at the NC Department of Education. She said IDRA analyzes data for OCS and creates 24
trainings accordingly. 25
Dr. Dena Keeling said every school based equity team has a lead, and she met with this 26
team for the first time last night. She said this work is important and she is having staff do a lot 27
of self-reflection. She said the equity taskforce is recruiting new members, including community 28
members, teachers, students and parents. She said this task force will make recommendations 29
to the Superintendent about issues related to equity. She said all current policies will be 30
reviewed. 31
Dr. Dena Keeling said she recently started affinity groups for staff, especially African 32
American staff. She said Orange High School has an excellent student led equity team, and an 33
African American history course offering has come out of that group. She said she listens 34
carefully to these students. She said she is a department of one, and it is a big lift to build this 35
effort in Orange County Schools. She said another challenge is the racial climate, and it is hard 36
to hear from students about feeling harmed and unsafe. She said it would be helpful if there 37
was a community wide focus on these issues. 38
Commissioner Greene said she is very interested in the students input about wanting 39
more diverse course offerings, and wanted to make sure Dr. Keeling knows about DPI 40
resources in these areas. 41
Jim Causby introduced Lee Williams who is the Chief Equity Officer. He said Dr. Lee 42
Williams was leaving at the end of the month and headed back to Guilford County Schools as a 43
middle school principal. 44
18
Lee Williams said Dr. Keeling covered most of the information, and CHCCS staff has 1
gone through similar training opportunities as OCS. He said when thinking about reopening, 2
every decision is made with a racial equity lens in mind. He said equity specialists are working 3
through dismantling and removing barriers. He said CHCCS currently has four equity 4
specialists: two in elementary, one in middle, and one in high school. 5
Mary Ann Wolf said it is refreshing to hear these updates, and thanked all staff for its 6
energy and work. 7
Hillary MacKenzie agreed, and expressed gratitude for the collaboration. She thanked 8
the BOCC for its help with the hotspots. 9
Commissioner Dorosin said six months ago there was a lot of discussion with CHCCS 10
around contracts, and an investigation that may be happening. He asked if there was a final 11
report that could be forwarded to the BOCC. 12
Mary Ann Wolf said the final report was just completed, and will be reviewed by the 13
CHCCS Board on October 8th, 2020. 14
Dr. Jim Causby said the report will be posted thereafter. 15
Commissioner Marcoplos said he was encouraged to hear that curriculums could be so 16
nimble to add more diverse classes. He said he would encourage the schools to add a course 17
on local government, as many people know nothing about local government. 18
Chair Rich said she would love to see women’s studies courses added. 19
Commissioner Greene said there are ready-made courses on local government at 20
Carolina’s Public Humanities. 21
Commissioner McKee said he is very pleased to hear the construction updates. 22
Chair Rich encouraged everyone to continue wearing masks, and follow safety 23
guidelines. She said the Governor has encouraged schools to open, but schools should not feel 24
pressured to do so. 25
26
Meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. 27
28
29
30
Penny Rich, Chair 31
32
Allen Coleman 33
Assistant Deputy Clerk II 34
35
Submitted for approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board. 36
1
ATTACHMENT 2 1
2
DRAFT 3
MINUTES 4
ORANGE COUNTY 5
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6
VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING 7
OCTOBER 6, 2020 8
7:00 p.m. 9
10
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, 11
October 6, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 12
13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and 14
Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, and Earl 15
McKee 16
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 17
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 18
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 19
Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, and Assistant Deputy Clerk Allen 20
Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 21
22
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and asked Commissioners to accept 23
a roll call. 24
The Board agreed by consensus. 25
26
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual 27
Business Meeting on October 6, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated in 28
the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and listen 29
to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on 30
Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 31
32
In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. 33
Written submittals by email 34
Speaking during the virtual meeting 35
36
Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this 37
agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 38
39
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 40
NONE 41
42
Chair Rich acknowledged the public charge. 43
44
Arts Moment – No Arts Moment was available for this meeting. 45
46
47
2. Public Comments 48
49
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 50
2
Jared Cates said he lives in Efland, and is concerned about the potential rezoning of the 1
Buc-cees development for a very large gas station. He said there are many residents who are 2
opposed to this development due to traffic, pollution, and quality of life. He said this project is 3
profoundly unsuited to the site. 4
5
The following comments were submitted via email to the Board of County 6
Commissioners (BOCC): 7
8
Dear Orange County Board of County Commissioners, 9
10
For the past 20+ years we have lived on what we call our Efland Estate. For us, we have a large 11
tract of land (5 acres) and an elaborate home (3 bedrooms, 2 baths). We also have numerous 12
bird species and various reptiles and amphibians, all of which we monitor as we participate in 13
citizen science projects and educational events and activities. In our modest home on a piece of 14
land limited because it does not perk (thank goodness), we have constructed two decades, 15
times two, of love and concern for this land. A Buc-ees is not what we had in mind when we 16
moved here and it is certainly not a development that we can support. Three short miles from 17
our home, it will impact not only our lifestyle but the very lives of the plants and animals whose 18
acreage we share. We strongly oppose this development in Efland and hope that the Orange 19
County Board of County Commissioners agrees. 20
21
Your Constituents, 22
Catherine E. Matthews cmatthews@uncg.edu, 919 593-0440 23
Timothy B. Spruill, tbspru@aol.com, 919 518-5489 24
25
Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Dorosin joined the meeting at 7:02 p.m. 26
27
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 28
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda 29
below.) 30
31
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 32
33
Commissioner Bedford said she had no comments. 34
Commissioner Greene said she is wearing purple in recognition of domestic violence 35
awareness month. She brought attention to Racist Roots.org, which focuses on the racist 36
history of the death penalty. 37
Commissioner Price said it is possible that the 2020 Census is still open, and it appears 38
that residents have until the end of the month. She encouraged all who had not yet completed 39
the census to please do so. 40
Commissioner Marcoplos said there are rumors of so called “poll watchers” to bother 41
people at the polls. He asked if the local board of elections and law enforcement have a plan to 42
address this possibility at Orange County sites, and petitioned staff to follow up. He asked if a 43
report from the summer’s policing and racial justice listening session is available. 44
Commissioner Dorosin said the national election protection hotline is available for voters 45
who have any questions at 1-866-OUR-VOTE. He said this is a national non-partisan voter 46
helpline. He referred to Commissioner Marcoplos’ comments, and said it is important not to 47
assign police officers to voter locations. He said if there is a need to respond, law enforcement 48
can do so, but should not be a presence otherwise, as it can lead to voter 49
suppression/intimidation. 50
Commissioner McKee had no comments. 51
3
Commissioner Rich said she sent a resolution for the Board’s review, which she will put 1
forward at the 10/20/2020 meeting, asking North Carolina to no longer support the Hyde 2
Amendment. She said October is breast concern awareness month. She said the Health 3
Department still encourages women to get mammograms done, despite COVID, as it can be 4
done safely. 5
Chair Rich said there was a Partners meeting today (formerly the MAC meeting), and 6
these meetings will take place monthly. She said COVID numbers were up from 1.8% to 2% 7
this week, and UNC was at 4.6% last week and now 5%. She said about 3,100 people are 8
being tested a week, and contact traces are working hard. She said hospitals are not 9
overwhelmed, but flu shots are critical, and she encouraged everyone to get flu shots. 10
Chair Rich said emergency services is spotting Hurricane Delta, with 120 miles per hour 11
winds. 12
Chair Rich said the BOCC wants to extend sincere condolences to Chad Dorill’s family 13
(Appalachian State (ASU) Student who died last week of COVID). She said ASU established a 14
hotline, and UNC has one as well. 15
Chair Rich said traditionally at this meeting the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) 16
chooses a Commissioners’ Planning Retreat Committee. She said the BOCC can postpone the 17
retreat until the spring, or not hold it at all. She asked if the BOCC wants to move forward on 18
this retreat. 19
Commissioner Price said she would be willing to serve on the committee and discuss 20
details as time moves forward. 21
Chair Rich said the only logistical issue is making sure the BOCC has time to vote on a 22
calendar change, if necessary. 23
Commissioner McKee said he would serve on this committee. He said he would like to 24
wait until the second meeting in November, and make a decision then. 25
Chair Rich said traditionally the retreat is one day, and 7 hours via Zoom would not be 26
ideal. She said retreats are more beneficial in person. 27
Commissioner Greene said she is interested in having a retreat, and would be happy 28
with several Zoom sessions. She said Triangle J has done this. She said a retreat would allow 29
the BOCC to revisit its goals from last year. She petitioned to hear back from Ashley Heger 30
about last year’s goal of tackling hunger. 31
Chair Rich said Commissioner Price, Dorosin, and McKee would serve on the retreat 32
planning committee. 33
All three commissioners agreed to serve. 34
Chair Rich said the committee could talk with the Clerk’s office, and report back to the 35
Board at a later date. 36
37
38
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 39
40
a. Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation 41
42
The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation recognizing October 2020 as 43
Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Orange County. 44
45
BACKGROUND: Domestic Violence is a pattern of control in an intimate relationship where one 46
person uses coercion and violence to gain power and control over a partner. 47
48
In 1989, the U.S. Congress first passed Public Law 101-112 designating October of that year as 49
National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and has adopted similar legislation each year 50
thereafter. The goal has been to educate and make the public aware of domestic violence 51
4
issues, support the victims of domestic violence, and to connect advocates across the nation 1
who are working to end domestic violence. 2
3
The Board of Commissioners is asked to proclaim October 2020 as "Domestic Violence 4
Awareness Month" in Orange County to support victims of domestic violence, to educate 5
residents, and support those working to end domestic violence. 6
7
Chair Rich introduced Valerie Sauer, Director of Community Education at the Compass 8
Center in Chapel Hill, who read the resolution. 9
10
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11
PROCLAMATION 12
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH 2020 13
14
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a pattern of coercion and control in an intimate partner 15
relationship where one person uses violence to gain power and control over their partner; and 16
17
WHEREAS, domestic violence includes not only physical, but also mental abuse, emotional 18
abuse, financial abuse, isolation and sexual abuse; and 19
20
WHEREAS, individuals of all backgrounds, regardless of race, age, gender identity, or sexual 21
orientation can experience abuse by an intimate partner; and 22
23
WHEREAS, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, on average nearly 24
20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During 25
one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men; and 26
27
WHEREAS, on a typical day there are 20,000 phone calls placed to domestic violence hotlines 28
nationwide according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; and 29
30
WHEREAS, in North Carolina, according to the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic 31
Violence, at least 57 individuals were murdered as a result of domestic violence in 2019; and 32
33
WHEREAS, Compass Center for Women and Families, the state-designated domestic violence 34
service provider for Orange County, served over 1,400 survivors of domestic violence through 35
their 24-hour hotline, support groups, court advocacy, crisis counseling, Latinx services, and 36
other services last year; and 37
38
WHEREAS, Compass Center has launched Safe Homes, New Lives - an innovative and 39
compassionate new housing strategy that empowers victims of domestic violence, provides 40
safety for them and their children, and keeps them in their community by providing scattered 41
housing across Orange County to shelter victims and their families for up to 3 months; and 42
43
WHEREAS, prevention strategies involve collaborations by multiple partners to promote social 44
norms, policies, and laws that support gender equity and foster intimate partnerships based on 45
mutual respect, equality, and trust; 46
47
Now, therefore, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, do hereby proclaim this 48
time to be: 49
50
“Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2020” 51
5
1
and encourage the residents of Orange County to observe this time in ways appropriate to its 2
importance and significance. 3
4
Proclaimed this the 6th day of October 2020. 5
____________________________________ 6
Penny Rich, Chair 7
Orange County Board of Commissioners 8
9
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to 10
approve the Proclamation designating October 2020 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in 11
Orange County, and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Proclamation. 12
13
Commissioner Price said this petition did not go through the traditional agenda review 14
process, but she said the topic is important to the BOCC, and she hopes all will support it. 15
Chair Rich asked if the word “citizens” can be amended to “residents” to include 16
everyone. 17
Valerie Sauer said this change is acceptable. 18
Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price accepted the amendment. 19
20
Roll call ensued 21
22
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 23
24
5. Public Hearings 25
26
a. Public Hearing on the 2021 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules of Rules, Standards 27
and Values 28
29
The Board held a public hearing on the 2021 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules of Rules, 30
Standards and Values. 31
32
BACKGROUND: As required by North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 105-317, the 33
proposed Schedules of Values (SOV) to be used in conducting the 2021 reappraisal were 34
submitted to the Board of County Commissioners on September 15, 2020. At that time, a public 35
hearing was set for October 6, 2020, and notice was advertised in the News of Orange, Chapel 36
Hill News and Durham Herald on September 16, 2020. The proposed Schedules have been 37
available for public inspection in the Orange County Tax Office, Orange County Clerk to the 38
Board's Office, and on the Orange County Tax Office website (available at 39
https://www.orangecountync.gov/878/Revaluation) since September 15, 2020. 40
41
The public hearing is the second step in a three- step process to adopt the Schedules that will 42
be used in conducting the 2021 reappraisal. The Board will be asked to adopt the Schedules at 43
its November 5, 2020 regular meeting. Following adoption, the Schedules will be appealable to 44
the State Property Tax Commission for thirty (30) days. 45
The timeline for the 2021 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as follows: 46
September 15, 2020: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners 47
September 16, 2020: Advertise in newspapers 48
October 6, 2020: Public hearing on SOV 49
November 5, 2020: Adoption of SOV 50
6
November 6, 2020: Publish 1st notice of adoption 1
November 13, 2020: Publish 2nd notice of adoption 2
November 20, 2020: Publish 3rd notice of adoption 3
November 27, 2020: Publish 4th notice of adoption 4
December 5, 2020: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV 5
6
Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 7
8
9 10
11
12 13
14
15
2021 REAPPRAISAL SCHEDULE OF
RULES, STANDARDS AND VALUES
Nancy T. Freeman
Tax Administrator
7
1 2
3
4 5
6
7 8
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 7
open the public hearing. 8
9
Roll call ensued 10
11
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12
13
PUBLIC COMMENT: 14
NONE 15
16
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 17
close the public hearing. 18
19
Roll call ensued 20
21
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 22
23
John Roberts reminded the BOCC that there must be a 24-hour written comment period 24
after a virtual public hearing, and comments can be sent to reval@orangecountync.gov or 25
ocbocc@orangecountync.gov 26
Chair Rich asked if a formal vote is needed. 27
John Roberts said no, that it just needs to be announced. 28
Commissioner Price said she received emails regarding a revaluation during a 29
pandemic, and asked staff to explain that there will be little to no financial harm by doing this is 30
2021. 31
Nancy Freeman said yes. 32
33
9
b. Second Public Hearing on CDBG-CV Grant Application for Emergency Housing 1
Assistance 2
3
The Board held a public hearing on the draft application from Orange County for 4
Community Development Block Grant – Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funds from the NC 5
Department of Commerce. In addition, the Board considered: 6
Authorizing the County to submit an application for CDBG funds 7
Authorizing the Chair to sign a resolution approving Orange County to apply for CDBG-8
CV funds. 9
10
BACKGROUND: On August 25, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper announced the availability of $28 11
million from federal Community Development Block Grant – Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funding to 12
be disbursed to support rental and utility payments and prevent evictions for those with a 13
demonstrated need (see Attachment 1). The funding will be distributed to eligible community 14
agencies around the state that will work directly with North Carolinians on an application and 15
disbursement process. 16
17
Orange County intends to apply for the CDBG-CV funds to be used with the County’s existing 18
Emergency Housing Assistance fund, which provides financial assistance to help Orange 19
County residents with low incomes secure and maintain stable housing (see Attachment 2). 20
Assistance is available to households in Orange County that earn no more than 60% of the area 21
median income, have an urgent need for housing assistance, and do not have adequate 22
savings to cover the cost of their housing need. 23
24
Before submitting an application, Orange County must hold two (2) public hearings to obtain 25
citizens' comments. The first public hearing was held at the beginning of the application 26
process. The second public hearing – the hearing being held today – must be held after 27
theapplication is drafted but prior to its submission. The draft application is available in 28
Attachment 4, and online at http://orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12902/. 29
30
The Board of Commissioners must also authorize the County to submit an application for 31
CDBG-CV funds through a resolution (see Attachment 3). All public comments received during 32
the public hearing today, the prior public hearing, and throughout the entire public comment 33
period will be considered and incorporated into the County’s final application. 34
35
Erika Brandt, Housing and Community Development Program Manager, made the 36
following PowerPoint presentation: 37
38
NC CDBG‐CV Applica on
for Emergency Housing Assistance
Board of Commissioners
October 6, 2020
10
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
RES-2020-058 1
2
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY 3
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING 4
FOR THE EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND 5
6
WHEREAS, the Orange County Emergency Housing Assistance fund, formerly called the 7
Housing Stabilization Fund, was established by the Orange County Board of Commissioners in 8
2018 as part of the Risk Mitigation and Housing Displacement Fund in order to provide 9
emergency financial assistance to low-income residents of the County to help secure and 10
maintain stable housing; and, 11
12
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has previously indicated its desire to 13
increase funding to the Emergency Housing Assistance fund in order to stabilize County 14
residents and the local housing market in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, 15
16
WHEREAS, the Commissioners have held two public hearings concerning the proposed 17
application for Community Development Block Grant funding to benefit the County’s Emergency 18
Housing Assistance fund; and, 19
20
WHEREAS, the Commissioners wish the County to pursue a formal application for Community 21
Development Block Grant funding to benefit the Emergency Housing Assistance fund; and have 22
invested monies in the amount of eight hundred eighty thousand dollars ($880,000) from the 23
County’s Coronavirus Relief Fund allocation into the project as committed to in the application. 24
25
WHEREAS, the Commissioners certify that the County will meet all federal regulatory and 26
statutory requirements of the State of North Carolina Community Development Block Grant 27
Program, 28
29
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that 30
Orange County is authorized to submit a formal application on behalf of Orange County to the 31
North Carolina Department of Commerce for approval of a Community Development Block 32
Grant to benefit the Emergency Housing Assistance fund. 33
34
35
Adopted this the 6th day of October, 2020 in Orange County, North Carolina. 36
37
__________________________ 38
Penny Rich, Chair 39
Orange County Board of Commissioners 40
41
ATTEST: 42
______________________________________________ 43
Clerk to the Board 44
45
46
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 47
open the public hearing. 48
49
Roll call ensued 50
51
12
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1
2
PUBLIC COMMENT: 3
NONE 4
5
Commissioner Dorosin asked if any thought has been given to those who do not have 6
access to the Internet in order to apply. He asked if these funds are being publicized. He asked 7
if the reduction in evictions is due to a moratorium on evictions, as opposed to actual progress. 8
Erika Brandt said those without Internet access can apply through the County’s 9
coordinated entry system, which is being done by phone via the housing helpline. She said 10
hard copies are available at housing offices, with drop boxes available to return. She said 11
COVID has made this process trickier. She said the Department is also working with many 12
community partners to get the word out and help people complete applications. 13
Commissioner Dorosin said that is encouraging, and he suggested using churches as 14
another network to reach people. He asked if Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) 15
had been contacted as a possible partner. 16
Erika Brandt said OWASA, Hillsborough Water System and Duke Energy are partners, 17
but reaching out to churches is a great idea. She said the moratorium is a legitimate factor in 18
the reduction of evictions, and staff is looking into further analysis. 19
Chair Rich said housing staff has also been in contact with Delores Bailey at 20
EmPOWERment, who is being very helpful in getting the word out. 21
22
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to 23
close the public hearing. 24
25
Roll call ensued 26
27
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 28
29
John Roberts said written comments can be submitted for 24 hours to 30
ocbocc@orangecountync.gov. 31
32
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price to: 33
34
Authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit an 35
application for CDBG-CV funds on behalf of the County 36
Authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving Orange County to apply for CDBG 37
funds 38
39
Roll call ensued 40
41
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42
43
Chair Rich said if a public comment comes in during the written public comment period, 44
the Board would revisit this vote. 45
46
47
6. Regular Agenda 48
49
The public comment period for items: 6-a, 6-b, 6-c, closed at 9:00 a.m. on September 50
24, 2020, and the BOCC will not accept any additional comment for these items. 51
13
1
a. Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central 2
Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County 3
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) 4
5
The Board considered voting to approve a resolution on a County-initiated request amending 6
the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use 7
Plan, and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 8
9
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, said the order of the planning items 10
this evening is typical, especially when considering changes to land use plans and zoning in the 11
same geographies, in whole or part. He said this maintains consistency. He said the two 12
rezoning items do include such a statement of consistency. He said this practice was reversed 13
at September meetings, to allow the public the opportunity to speak. He said the public hearing 14
on RTLP was spread across two meetings to accommodate public comment. He said the land 15
use amendments this evening are not for RTLP, but rather an extension of a process started in 16
2017. He said the Planning Board, staff, and County Manager recommend approval of RTLP, 17
but approving the land use plans does not guarantee the approval of RTLP. He said if the 18
BOCC chooses not to approve the land use plans, it should do so because it no longer supports 19
the existing plan, rather than being opposed to RTLP. He reviewed the following information: 20
21
BACKGROUND: Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential 22
expansion of the Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County 23
continued work towards investing in a sewer “trunk line”, south of Interstate 40 and west of Old 24
Highway 86, in accordance with its Capital Improvement Plan developed in 2012. With an eye 25
towards maximizing the use of the sewer line, there is interest in designating additional lands 26
that could be served via a “gravity sewer line” for non-residential purposes. In addition, Orange 27
County evaluates the amount of land available for economic development, and due to lands 28
being developed as the UNC Hospital and Durham Technical Community College over the last 29
few years, the limited supply in this area was considered for expansion. 30
31
At its June 6, 2017 meeting, the BOCC approved amendments to the Water and Sewer 32
Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) to expand the Hillsborough 33
Primary Service Area. All parties have since approved the WASMPBA amendment, with the 34
Town of Hillsborough Board as the last party to approve it in October 2017. Because of 35
language included in the approval resolutions, the WASMPBA amendment is to become 36
effective when the joint land use plan is amended to reflect the expanded Urban Service Area 37
and assigned a future land use classification. Some of these background details, including 38
notice to the Board when the land use plan amendments would be forthcoming, were included 39
as an Information Item on the Board’s June 16, 2020 agenda. The link to that Information Item 40
is: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/62679/Page1.aspx 41
42
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the 43
Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated amendments to the Central 44
Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive 45
Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough 46
Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 parcels (in 47
whole or part) encompassing 84 acres. The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 parcels 48
(in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres. The COCA proposed land use category is Suburban 49
Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. These related amendments 50
14
are being proposed to prescribe the land uses that will be allowed in the expanded area for 1
Economic Development. 2
3
1. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) 4
Land Use Plan is a joint land use document that defines the locations of future land 5
use categories to help achieve a desired and coordinated pattern of development 6
over time. The COCA Land Use Plan includes several urban-style land use 7
categories that are more specific than those provided in the County’s 8
Comprehensive Plan, which covers a much larger geographic area. Implementation 9
of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency with the County’s 10
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and a 11
coordinated approach to rezoning. The amendment proposes a “Suburban Office 12
Complex” land use in the expansion area which would designate the area for office 13
and employment, businesses in a campus setting, and limited supporting services. 14
The proposed amendment also reflects the expansion of the Town’s Urban Service 15
Boundary consistent with the WASMPBA to provide water and sewer service to the 16
area. As part of a joint land use plan, this amendment requires approval by the Town 17
of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Town of Hillsborough has already taken 18
action and unanimously approved the amendment as follows. 19
20
Town of Hillsborough Approval Process: 21
March 15, 2018 – Town Public Hearing and Planning Board recommendation 22
March 26, 2018 – Hillsborough Town Board adopted 23
24
2. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the 25
location of future land use categories, consistent with any joint land use plans, and is 26
designed to accommodate a particular combination of general land uses. The FLUM 27
helps achieve a desired pattern of development over time and is implemented primarily 28
through zoning. The proposed amendment to this plan would change the expansion area 29
from a Rural Residential land use to an Economic Development Transition Activity Node, 30
which would designate the area for light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, 31
and flex space (typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as 32
suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, 33
showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar operations). 34
35
The County has not initiated any rezoning at this time. Currently, the area is zoned Rural 36
Residential (R-1). However, approximately 12-acres of a developer initiated and 37
proposed Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) are located in the amendment area 38
discussed herein. Any rezoning that comes forward in the future will require a 39
subsequent item on a public hearing and finding that it is consistent with the plans. 40
41
Planning Board Recommendation: The Orange County Planning Board, at its August 5, 42
2020 regular meeting, voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. 43
Clarification of the motion voted upon was deemed necessary and the Planning Board 44
considered a clarified motion at its special meeting on August 19, 2020 when the board 45
voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the amendments. Agenda materials from these 46
meetings can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 47
48
Public Hearing: A public hearing was opened on September 15, 2020 and continued 49
without public comment to September 22, 2020 so that all members of the public signed 50
up to speak on the RTLP proposal, a separate item on the agenda, would have 51
15
adequate opportunity to speak and be heard by the Board. At the September 22 hearing, 1
four (4) people spoke on this item. 2
3
Materials from the September 15 and 22 meetings are available at: 4
https://www.orangecountync.gov/1707/BOCC-Agendas. 5
6
Video from the September 22, 2020 meeting and public hearing on this item can be 7
accessed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos. 8
9
In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings 10
during declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours 11
after the public hearing was closed. Comments sent to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov 12
are viewable at: https://groups.google.com/g/ocbocc?pli=1. The public comment period 13
closed at 9:00AM on September 24, 2020. The BOCC will not accept any further public 14
comment. 15
16
A RTLP Frequently Asked Questions document, which includes a section on Land Use 17
and Zoning, was prepared in response to public comments and is available via the 18
following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12732/Final-19
Research-Triangle-Logistics-Park-FAQ?bidId= 20
21
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of 22
the Resolution contained in Attachment 1, indicating consistency with the County’s land 23
use and economic development goals. Text shown in the Resolution in “Track Changes” 24
format is new text that was not included in the version received by the Planning Board 25
and provides greater detail of the County’s efforts, over time, to prepare additional area 26
for Economic Development purposes. Attachment 2 is a Memo from the County 27
Planning and Inspections Director that includes a Justification Outline for the proposed 28
plan amendments. 29
30
31
RES-2020-053 32
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 33
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED 34
AREA LAND USE PLAN 35
ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP 36
37
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the: 38
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use 39
Plan, 40
Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, as established in Section 41
1.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and 42
43
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central 44
Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan consists of the following: 45
Extend the Town’s Urban Service Boundary for public water and sewer consistent with 46
previously approved Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement 47
amendment by all parties, and 48
16
Add the Suburban Office Complex Future Land Use Classification to all or portions of 17 1
parcels, totaling 84 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40, 2
and 3
4
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future 5
Land Use Map consists of the following: 6
Amend all or portions of 20 parcels, totaling 89 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 7
86, south of Interstate 40 from Rural Residential to Economic Development Transition. 8
Additionally, 1.64 acres of road right-of-way is included, and 9
One overlay land use classification applies in this geographic area (Resource Protection 10
Area). No modifications are being proposed to the boundary, and 11
12
WHEREAS, the following parcels are affected by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 13
Future Land Use Map amendment proposal: 14
15
Parcel
Identification
Number
(PIN)
Entire or
Partial Parcel
to be
Changed?
Owner on Record Acreage
Proposed to
be Changed
9862998894 Partial
LANDMARK MANAGEMENT PARTNERS
LLC 11.69
9872087570 Partial CHARLENE W HAMLETT 0.03
9872095945 Partial LARRY B LEE 1.64
9872098324 Partial
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N
BRYANT 7.45
9872183072 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN 0.02
9872187626 Partial
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N
BRYANT 7.98
9872188329 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN and VICKIE R JERNIGAN 1.87
9872191961 Entire JEANINE L DUKE and JAMES N POULOS 1.18
9872193459 Entire
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N
BRYANT 10.23
9872196844 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.26
9872198336 Entire
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N
BRYANT 10.44
9872286360 Partial REA LANDCOM INC 0.04
9872286779 Partial
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY A
BRYANT 0.59
9872292222 Entire
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N
BRYANT 10.18
9872298289 Partial
THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N
BRYANT 7.99
9873007189 Entire JOHN JR BOXTER and SHANNON MARTIN 1.06
9873008345 Entire JOSEPH S SHORE and SARAH C SHORE 2.71
9873104230 Entire
MICHAEL W SUDYK and GEORGE W
SUDYK 4.45
9873104310 Partial BEATRICE S BROOKS 0.72
9873108103 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.51
16
17
WHEREAS, the approved Article 46 ¼-Cent County Sales and Use Tax, effective in April 2012, 1
allocates 50% of the funds to Orange County Economic Development District initiatives including 2
infrastructure improvements in the Hillsborough EDD area, and 3
4
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential 5
expansion of the Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County continued 6
work towards investing in a sewer “trunk line”, in accordance with its Capital Improvement Plan 7
developed in 2012, and 8
9
WHEREAS, the proposals have been found to be internally consistent with the 2030 10
Orange County Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: 11
12
Objective ED-1.5: 13
Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and 14
mitigate these barriers. 15
16
Objective ED-2.1: 17
Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer. 18
(See also Land Use Objective LU-1.1 and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-5.) 19
20
Objective ED-2.5: 21
Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and 22
industrial uses in the County. 23
24
Objective ED-2.7: 25
Select industrial sites in Economic Development Areas based on present and planned 26
supporting systems, such as public water and sewer, access to adequate highway, rail, or 27
public transportation infrastructures, and minimize detrimental environmental or negative 28
social outcomes. (See also Water and Wastewater Objective WW-15.) 29
30
Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, 31
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. 32
33
Objective LU-1.1: 34
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential 35
development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and 36
community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-37
speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural 38
and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and 39
creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. 40
(See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and 41
Wastewater Objective WW-2.) 42
43
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or 44
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals, 45
and 46
47
WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance 48
(UDO) has been deemed complete, and 49
50
18
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange 1
County that the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land 2
Use Plan and Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map are hereby amended 3
as depicted on the attached maps. 4
5
Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner 6
________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of 7
___________________, 2020. 8
I, Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO 9
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said 10
Board at a meeting held on ________________________, 2020 as relates in any way to the 11
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said 12
Board. 13
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 14
2020. 15
SEAL 16
__________________________________ 17
Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 18
19
Commissioner Price referred to the suburban style land use, and asked if this will affect 20
the height of buildings. 21
Tom Altieri said no, and height limitations are addressed in the County’s Unified 22
Development Ordinance (UDO). 23
Commissioner Price said she is still concerned that staff is saying this has nothing to do 24
with RTLP, as it clearly does in her mind. She said she is most concerned about the 12 acres 25
being used as industrial/suburban office, etc. 26
Tom Altieri said the recommendation is for the suburban office category, which is 27
applicable to the COCA, and in regards to the County’s FLUM, the recommendation is 28
economic development transition. He said the two plans work together to inform any rezoning 29
that would occur in the area. 30
Commissioner Dorosin said these maps really illustrate a critical problem with many 31
County maps. He said parcels are divided in different zonings and uses, and it is important to 32
look at the boundaries of these areas and clean them up. He said every time one of these 33
issues come up, it adds a complicating wrinkle that parcels have multiple designations on them. 34
He said it is not fair to landowners, and it undermines the long range planning process. 35
Commissioner McKee asked if Tom Altieri could restate his comments about agenda 36
items “b” and “c”. 37
Tom Altieri said this set of land use amendments was originated in 2017, and this 38
evening will conclude this process. He said if the BOCC chooses not to approve the land use 39
amendments, it should do so not based on RTLP, but rather because it believes the area is not 40
suitable for public water and sewer services. He said if the BOCC does approve these land use 41
amendments, it could still make the decision to deny approval of RTLP. 42
19
Commissioner McKee said this process has been going on for 3 years, which is long 1
before RTLP came into view. 2
Commissioner Greene said Commissioner McKee beat her to the point, and these are 3
very clearly separate items. 4
Chair Rich said the Town of Hillsborough approved this plan in March 2018. 5
6
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to 7
approve the resolution amending the COCA Land Use Plan and the Orange County 8
Comprehensive Plan FLUM. 9
10
Roll call ensued 11
12
VOTE: UNANMIOUS 13
14
b. Zoning Atlas Amendment – Parcels off Old NC Highway 86 (District 2 of Settlers 15
Point MPD-CZ) 16
17
The Board considered voting to approve the Statement of Consistency and the 18
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas. 19
20
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the following: 21
22
BACKGROUND: A public hearing was opened on September 15, 2020 and continued without 23
public comment to September 22, 2020 so that all members of the public signed up to speak on 24
the RTLP proposal, a separate item on the agenda, would have adequate opportunity to speak 25
and be heard by the Board. No one spoke on this item at the September 22 meeting. 26
27
Materials from the public hearing are available at: 28
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/0/doc/49647/Page1.aspx. 29
30
Video from the September 22, 2020 meeting can be accessed at: 31
https://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos. 32
33
In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during 34
declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours after the public 35
hearing was closed. 36
37
Interested parties were told so submit comments via e-mail, or in writing to the Planning 38
Department office at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough, by 9:00 a.m. 39
September 24, 2020. 40
41
No written comments were received at the Planning Department office by the deadline. All 42
comments sent to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov on this proposal are viewable at: 43
https://groups.google.com/g/ocbocc. 44
45
As staff indicated during the public hearing, a developer has proposed a new MPD-CZ district 46
involving 2 parcels associated with the previously approved MPD-CZ (Settlers Point). Staff has 47
determined the remaining 8 parcels will have difficulty complying with the MPD-CZ development 48
standards as approved in 2018 with the elimination of these 2 parcels. In order to ensure these 49
8 parcels have development potential, staff recommends they be rezoned as follows: 50
51
20
1. Rezone parcels (PINs: 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-9450, 1
9873-11-7247, and 9873-10-7937), labeled as number(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the map 2
above: 3
FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point 4
and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 5
TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Major 6
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 7
2. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-10-4310), labeled as number 10 on the map above: 8
FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point, 9
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). 10
TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2), Major 11
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). 12
3. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-20-2388), labeled as number 9 on the map above: 13
FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point 14
and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 15
TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) and Major 16
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 17
Staff’s proposal will return these 8 properties back to their original zoning designation in place 18
prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ. 19
20
Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board 21
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 3) 22
and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 4) as proposed by staff. 23
24
Excerpts of the minutes from this meeting, as well as the Board’s signed statement of 25
consistency, are included in https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. 26
Attachment 2. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at: 27
28
Planning Director’s Recommendation: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified 29
Development Ordinance (UDO) the Planning Director shall: ‘… cause an analysis to be made of 30
the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration’. 31
The Director has determined the proposed atlas amendments are necessary to ensure each 32
parcel has development option(s) and that rezoning said parcels back to their original zoning 33
designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. As a 34
result, the Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the 35
amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 3 and the 36
proposed zoning atlas amendment ordinance contained in Attachment 4. 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Commissioner McKee asked if one motion could be made to approve both the statement 42
of consistency and the ordinance amending the zoning atlas. 43
John Roberts said he would prefer the motions be separate. 44
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map on page 40 (electronic version), and said 45
there is a strip of land between number 5 and 6, and another cut out between 6 and 7, and 46
asked if those two parcels are part of the EDH2. 47
Michael Harvey said those two parcels are zoned EDH2 48
49
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos 50
to approve the Statement of Consistency. 51
25
1
Roll call ensued. 2
3
VOTE: UNANMIOUS 4
5
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 6
approve the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas. 7
8
Roll call ensued 9
10
VOTE: UNANMIOUS 11
12
c. Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District 13
(MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) 14
15
Michael Harvey reviewed the following information: 16
17
PURPOSE: To continue review and discussion on an applicant initiated Zoning Atlas 18
Amendments for 3 parcels west of Old NC Highway 86/south of Interstate 40 to Master Plan 19
Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. 20
21
Specifically, the Board will be finalizing on an application submitted by Terra Equity Incorporated 22
to rezone parcels within PIN numbers 9863-71-8857, 9863-91-6573, and 9862-99-8894: 23
FROM: MPD-CZ (Settlers Point), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay 24
District, Rural Residential (R-1), and Rural Buffer (RB). 25
TO: MPD-CZ (Research Triangle Logistics Park), Major Transportation Corridor 26
(MTC) Overlay District, Rural Buffer (RB). 27
NOTE: As indicated at the public hearing, approximately 26,000 sq.ft. of 28
property (PIN 9862-99-8894) shall remain zoned RB and will remain in 29
open space. 30
31
As a general reminder the public comment period for this item closed at 9:00 a.m. on 32
September 24, 2020. The BOCC will not be accepting any further public comment on this item. 33
34
As the Board is aware, staff has recommended the imposition of several conditions designed to 35
address the impacts of the project as well as address some of the concerns expressed by the 36
general public. These conditions must mutually be agreed to by the applicant. At the writing of 37
this abstract, staff and the applicant are still working to finalize various conditions. 38
39
BACKGROUND: Review of this item began at the BOCC’s September 15, 2020 BOCC regular 40
meeting and concluded with the closure of the public hearing on September 22, 2020. Agenda 41
materials from the public hearing can be accessed at: 42
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=61357&row=1&dbid=0. 43
44
Video from the September 15 and 22, 2020 meetings can be accessed at: 45
https://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos. 46
47
Approximately 100 people spoke on this item over the course of the two public hearing dates. In 48
accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during 49
declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours after the public 50
hearing was closed. Interested parties were told so submit comments via e-mail, or in writing to 51
26
the Planning Department office at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough, by 9:00 1
a.m. September 24, 2020. 2
3
No written comments were received at the Planning Department office by the deadline. All 4
comments sent to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov on this proposal are viewable at: 5
https://groups.google.com/g/ocbocc. 6
7
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 3 identified parcels to a new MPD-CZ district 8
allowing for the development of a new master planned project, referred to as the Research 9
Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) summarized as follows: 10
11
12
1. Construction of approximately 2,400,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting non-13
residential development and preserve 41 acres (25%) of land as open space. 14
2. Permitted land uses within the new MPD-CZ district would include: a. Health 15
technology, 16
b. Information sciences and engineering, 17
c. Advanced and light manufacturing, 18
d. Scientific research and laboratories, 19
e. Logistics/supply operations, 20
f. Warehousing and supply chain fulfillment services. 21
22
The applicant has also provided a list of land uses that would be strictly 23
prohibited within the new district; 24
3. Vehicular access would be through Service Road, running parallel with Interstate 40, 25
and Davis Road; 26
4. Buildings would observe a 6 story height limit consistent with County regulations. 27
Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher. 28
5. The applicant is proposing imposition of development and design standards (i.e. 29
architectural design, signage, internal and external setback limits, height limits, 30
landscaping/buffer standards, outdoor lighting standards, erosion control/stormwater, 31
etc.) governing overall development of the project if the MPD-CZ district is approved by 32
the County. 33
34
During the public hearing several concern(s) were expressed over the project, summarized as 35
follows: 36
37
38
a. Proposed development is too intensive for the 161 acres of land (i.e. over 2,400,00 39
sq.ft. of building area cannot be accommodated on the 3 parcels); 40
b. Proposed land uses are not in harmony with surrounding property; 41
c. The applicant has not provided sufficient details on proposed land uses. Local 42
residents have expressed concern(s) they will not have a voice is recommending denial 43
of specific tenants; 44
d. Action on the application will result in illegal spot zoning subjecting the County to a 45
court challenge. Specifically the parcel along Davis Road is within the Rural Residential 46
land use category, as defined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, and was never 47
intended to support high intensity economic development projects; 48
e. The request is inconsistent with various goals and policies of the adopted 2020 49
Comprehensive Plan including but not limited to: 50
27
i. Allow for intensive non-residential development in an area of the county 1
designated as a rural and/or protected area, 2
ii. Will not result in adequate protection of the natural environment, 3
iii. Will not be in harmony with surrounding land uses. 4
5
f. Will negatively impact rural neighborhoods in and around Davis Road due to the 6
proposed driveway allowing vehicular access to and from the development. The 7
driveway will generate too much traffic on the road creating a public safety hazard. 8
Further, commercial vehicles will make use of existing, rural roadways (i.e. Old NC 9
Highway 86, New Hope Church Road, Orange Grove Road); 10
g. The project does not provide enough protection for existing environmental features 11
(i.e. streams, floodplains, and identified hardwood forests), will have a negative impact 12
on Cates Creek, and will impair the health of the Eno River; 13
h. Development will negatively impact and displace local wildlife; 14
i. Insufficient safeguards are proposed addressing stormwater runoff and impacts on 15
adjacent property owners; 16
j. Development of buildings with a maximum height limit of 60 feet will dominate the local 17
landscape; 18
k. Truck traffic will create health hazards for residents due to increases in diesel 19
exhaust/fumes. Further, noise created by these trucks will negatively impact local 20
residents and will constitute violation(s) of applicable noise regulations; 21
l. The applicant has been inconsistent in the number of jobs the project will generate; 22
m. The submitted traffic impact analysis is contradictory with the application narrative. 23
24
As previous indicated, there are numerous recommended conditions designed to address the 25
anticipated impacts of the project. 26
27
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item on August 5 and 19, 28
2020. The Board voted 6 to 4 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency 29
(Attachment 2) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 3) as proposed by staff. 30
Those voting against the project cited the following concerns: 31
a. The Board wanted the applicant to provide the specific tenants (i.e. names, 32
operational characteristics, etc.) within the project for ‘review and approval’ prior to 33
action being taken on the zoning atlas amendment request; 34
b. Board members expressed concern over anticipated traffic impacts on Davis Road; 35
c. The project was deemed to be too intensive for the area. 36
37
Excerpts of the minutes from these meetings, as well as the Board’s signed statement of 38
consistency, are included in Attachment 1. Agenda materials from the meetings can be viewed 39
at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. 40
41
42
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 43
1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable 44
and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 2. 45
46
STAFF COMMENT: This presumes the land use designation of the 12 acre 47
parcel (PIN 9862-99-8894) is changed from Rural Residential to Economic 48
Development Transition Activity Node as detailed herein. If the aforementioned 49
FLUM is not approved, the staff recommendation will have to be revised. 50
28
2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, for 1
the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 3. 2
3
Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it 4
should be noted that Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar 5
amendment, affecting the same property or portion thereof, may be submitted for a period of 6
one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial or withdrawal. 7
8
RECOMMENDATION: In the absence of the applicant formally accepting recommended 9
conditions, the Manager recommended the Board continue to review/discuss the project and 10
review imposition of additional conditions. 11
12
If the applicant accepts the imposition of recommended conditions, in writing, by the October 6, 13
2020 meeting the BOCC can approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2), and the 14
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 3). 15
16
Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Hillsborough plans to annex this site. 17
Michael Harvey said there is no plan to annex this property based on the approval of this 18
plan. He said if the site goes over the daily water allotment, then the Town may require 19
annexation as a condition of any additional water and sewer. 20
Commissioner Price asked if the fire department has enough equipment to handle 21
buildings that are over five stories high. 22
Michael Harvey said yes, and the buildings will have to have sprinkler systems 23
throughout, in accordance with state building code. 24
Commissioner Price asked if these buildings will place a greater burden on the fire 25
department. 26
Michael Harvey said this question was asked, and the answer was that it will not have an 27
impact on fire provision and service. 28
Commissioner McKee referred to page 52, section b-1, second paragraph, and said the 29
language is confusing. 30
Michael Harvey said the height limit is 60 feet for the project at large, and those 31
structures fronting Davis Road shall not exceed 40 feet in height. He said there was a repetition 32
of words by mistake, which he corrected. 33
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the language of “fronting on Davis 34
Road,” and asked what will happen if the front of the building is on an inside road. 35
Michael Harvey said if a building has frontage on Davis Road, even if the front entrance 36
is on an internal street, the height will not be able to exceed 40 feet. He said this language is 37
from the Applicant, and it may be best to speak with them on this matter. 38
Commissioner Price said the County could insure this condition. 39
Commissioner Greene asked Michael Harvey if he could read the second paragraph 40
under “b” the way it is meant to be written. 41
Michael Harvey said the statement should read “no structure shall be erected fronting 42
Davis Road which exceeds 40 ft. in height, above the highest elevation of the adjoining portion 43
of Davis Road, as measured to the roof deck of the building.” 44
Commissioner Greene asked if “the highest elevation of the adjoining portion of Davis 45
Road” could be clarified. 46
Michael Harvey said the Applicant is trying to articulate the fact that parts of Davis Road 47
have higher elevation than the property. He said the goal is trying to avoid an arbitrary 40-foot 48
height limit when the land itself goes up and down. 49
Commissioner Greene said now she is even more confused. She said at first reading 50
she was worried the measurement would be from the highest portion of Davis Road, which 51
29
could be at a higher grade level than the property, and lead to buildings being higher than 40 1
feet. She said she would prefer it to read that buildings cannot exceed 40 feet starting at grade 2
level wherever the building is built. 3
Michael Harvey said it would be best to ask this question of the Applicant. He said he 4
reads the language as a way for the Applicant to address the fact that portions of Davis Road 5
are at a higher elevation than the property. He said the Applicant will take the measurement 6
from the highest portion of the adjoining Davis Road property to the roof deck of the building. 7
Commissioner Greene said so the building could exceed 40 feet. 8
Michael Harvey said yes, but it would not exceed 40 from under the guise of measuring 9
at Davis Road. He said if the property is 10 feet lower, then the building could be 50 feet, but 10
fronting Davis Road, there will be no buildings higher than 40 feet. 11
Commissioner Greene said this is a conversation she would like to have with the 12
Developer. 13
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board should have a conversation with the 14
Developer. He said the overall development should be 40 feet high, as opposed to use a 15
geographical feature near by to raise the height of the buildings. He said there could be a 16
central measuring point that is used for the 40-foot height limit. 17
Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Commissioner Greene’s comments and 18
remarks about asking the developer. He said he sees this wording as a way to achieve a 50 or 19
60-foot façade on Davis Road. 20
Commissioner Price referred to the setbacks, and asked if follow up discussion needs to 21
be had with the Developer. 22
Michael Harvey said yes. 23
Commissioner Price said the County has put in setbacks to protect green space, and 24
asked if there is reasoning behind the developer reducing the setbacks. 25
Michael Harvey said it would be best to talk to the Applicant. 26
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 54, point IV-d, and asked if staff could clarify its 27
purpose. 28
Michael Harvey said the rationale for the extension is to allow for additional service on 29
adjoining parcels, and potentially develop a true service road going west. He said it is part of 30
County’s efforts to spread connectivity. 31
Commissioner Price referred to page 55, item n, and said there was so much discussion 32
about Davis Road, but the Applicant seems to want to keep Davis Road as a part of the plan. 33
Michael Harvey said the Applicant has put in conditions to mitigate concerns about Davis 34
Road, but he suggests the Board discuss this further with the Applicant. He said the Applicant 35
believes the concerns can be addressed with a Davis Road driveway. 36
Commissioner Greene referred to page 55, item p, and said she thought once the road 37
was saturated with the trucks there would be two left turn lanes, but rather it seems a second 38
access onto 86 would be needed. She asked if there is a plan in place, should the second 39
access not be possible. She asked if development would not be able to expand. 40
Michael Harvey said the intent of the condition is to show that the Applicant has worked 41
with all involved to preserve a left turn from the service road onto 86. He said the time may 42
come that the left turn may become untenable, and if so, the Applicant would have to find an 43
alternative access point to allow traffic to turn left onto old 86. 44
Commissioner Greene said she still does not see what happens if the second access 45
point cannot be secured. 46
Michael Harvey said if the second access point cannot be secured, then the 47
development that necessitated it in the first place would not be allowed to proceed. 48
Commissioner Marcoplos said there is no language about traffic stopping while pursuing 49
the second access point. 50
30
Michael Harvey said site plans would have to be approved, and staff would not approve 1
a project that failed to allow traffic to go left. He said it is conceivable that the Applicant will 2
proceed with improvements that would make these issues moot. 3
Commissioner Marcoplos said this is all somewhat hypothetical, and development would 4
not proceed if it was unsafe. 5
Michael Harvey said yes. He said an updated TIA may make this a moot point. 6
Commissioner Marcoplos said it begs the question of why not find a safer access point 7
now. 8
Michael Harvey said the Applicant has looked at various options, and have found no 9
alternate access point. He said if the project is approved, that may motivate landowners to sell. 10
Commissioner Bedford said if the Applicant will still proceed with a light at Davis and Old 11
86 if the left turn out of the access road is approved. 12
Michael Harvey said yes. 13
Commissioner Greene referred to page 58, item xi, and asked if the wording 14
“substantially” could be explained. 15
Michael Harvey said that is a question for the Applicant. 16
Chair Rich referred to page 58, item xiv, and asked if the percentage of these buildings 17
that will be operated 24/7 is known. She said motion detector lights are not necessary if 18
buildings are closed. 19
Michael Harvey said the application does not get into that level of detail, but there are no 20
regulatory standards establishing hours of operation. 21
Commissioner Bedford referred to page 60, and asked if regulations require trees be 22
native, non-invasive species. 23
Michael Harvey said yes, current regulations require drought resistant, native, non-24
invasive species. He said the Applicant will have to abide by those standards. 25
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to page 67, item VIII-a, and asked if there is anything 26
else in the UDO that provides protection. 27
Michael Harvey said there are stream buffers in place, and the Applicant will not install 28
anything within 30 feet of the buffer, which is more restrictive than code currently requires. 29
Michael Harvey concluded his comments, and suggested the Board of County 30
Commissioners (BOCC) hear from the Applicant. 31
Commissioner Marcoplos suggested going through the zoning atlas amendment page by 32
page with the Applicant. 33
Michael Birch said the first question raised was about building heights. He said based 34
on the comments received by the BOCC tonight, the buildings will have a maximum of 40 feet of 35
height from the finished floor to the roof deck, and those measurements are not in relationship 36
to Davis Road. 37
Commissioner Greene thanked the Applicant for this concession, but said she has 38
additional concerns. She said 40 feet is too tall for a transitional area. She said she was told 39
last time that those parcels labeled suburban on the map are meant to be transitional areas. 40
She said 40 foot tall buildings may be appropriate in suburban Charlotte, but they are not in 41
suburban Hillsborough. She said she would like to see provision around buildings that it be 42
stepped back, so that it has character. 43
Michael Birch said the Applicant does have a 100-foot wide vegetative buffer along both 44
property lines, as well as Davis Road. He said 40 feet is close to a residential home with three 45
stories, or a suburban apartment building exceeds 40 feet. He said the building will be well 46
screened, especially from Davis Road. 47
Commissioner Greene asked if a 40-foot building is a typical number of stories. 48
Michael Birch said an industrial building would be one story at 40 feet, so there is not a 49
natural area for a set back. 50
Commissioner Greene asked if offices would be a part of the building. 51
31
Michael Birch said offices are on the same main floor. 1
Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan in place for buildings that have a front door 2
on an internal street. 3
Michael Birch said the intent of the wording is for the buildings that are closest to Davis 4
Road, not so much that the building’s front faces Davis Road. 5
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the height of the building, depending 6
on how the land is graded. 7
Michael Birch said the Applicant had the same concern, and attempted to mitigate this 8
with language about heights near Davis Road. He said the building will be sitting in a hole 9
relative to Davis Road. 10
Commissioner Price asked if this will be a warehouse or a suburban office building. 11
Michael Birch said he does not anticipate this being a multistory office building. 12
Commissioner Price asked if the facility would be more of a warehouse 13
Michael Birch said there are architectural examples in the Applicant’s materials. He said 14
it will not look like a typical warehouse, nor will it look like a standard, storied office building. 15
Commissioner McKee asked if the Applicant could explain how it arrived at the particular 16
language related to the height section, as he finds it to be a way to get past the 40-foot height 17
requirement. 18
Michael Birch said the wording was developed based on the Applicant’s interpretation of 19
the Board’s comments. He said the Applicant worked with staff to focus on the views that will 20
be seen from Davis Road. He said the Applicant capped the height at 40 feet at Davis Road, 21
because buildings behind it will not be visible, as the land is lower there. 22
Commissioner McKee said he brought up the concern of seeing a 60-foot structure from 23
Davis Road. He asked if the Applicant is purporting that one will see the top 40 feet of the 24
building from Davis Road, but not the bottom 20 feet as the elevation is lower. 25
Michael Birch said there is 100 feet from the right of way of Davis Road that is vegetated 26
into the site. He said this will largely screen the building. He said the Applicant may have 27
misunderstood, and is now proposing that the cap be 40 feet, and not be relative to Davis Road. 28
Commissioner McKee said this convoluted language was off putting. He said the 29
accommodation was made by changing the language to 40 feet, and would have been simpler 30
to just make this change in the first place. He said a 100 foot buffer is not as effective as one 31
may hope. 32
Michael Birch said the Applicant was not trying to be tricky, and was seeking to focus on 33
the view from Davis Road. 34
Commissioner McKee asked if the Developer has an opinion on a 30-foot height cap on 35
Davis Road. 36
Michael Birch said a 30-foot building is functionally incompatible with the demands of the 37
market place for these types of uses. 38
Michael Harvey said he can type in modifications as they come up, or staff can simply 39
take direction. He said he needs specifics on which to work with the Applicant. 40
Chair Rich asked for an example of an existing 40-foot building locally. 41
Michael Harvey said the UNC hospital in Hillsborough is about 60 feet. He said the 42
Applicant is willing to amend the language to say buildings on Davis Road will have a max 43
height of 40 feet from floor to rooftop. 44
Michael Birch said the proposed language is 40 feet from finished floor to roof deck. 45
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is glad for the clarification about the height 46
requirement, and feels this is in line with the Board’s wishes. 47
Commissioner Greene asked if there is an appreciable difference between the roof deck 48
and rooftop. 49
Michael Birch said with a flat roof there is the roof deck and then a parapet that is a few 50
feet higher. 51
32
Commissioner Greene said this extra height might screen HVAC equipment, for 1
example. 2
Michael Birch said that is correct, anything that is on the roof may be screened. 3
Commissioner Greene said the whole building would be more than 40 feet. 4
Michael Birch said from an appearance perspective yes. He said the Durham Tech 5
building is about 40 feet. 6
Commissioner McKee referred to the roof deck and the parapet shielding things on top 7
of the roof, and said the height from the roof deck will be more than just a few extra feet. 8
Michael Birch said there are several different ways to screen these features, including 9
specialized screenings closer to the units. He said building heights are not typically measured 10
to the height of a parapet. 11
Commissioner McKee said it is thus impossible to know how tall this building will appear 12
from a visual perspective. 13
Michael Birch said that is not the Applicant’s intent. He said the Applicant would be 14
willing to impose a maximum parapet height, if desired. 15
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan for this evening is for the BOCC to negotiate the 16
parts of this agreement, and the BOCC vote on the item at the end. He said he would like to 17
focus on items within the proposal that Commissioners are unable to accept, and see if there is 18
potential for further compromise. He asked if the BOCC must vote on this item tonight, or can it 19
see a written version of the changes and vote at a later time. 20
John Roberts the BOCC can vote on approval or denial tonight. He said if the BOCC 21
imposes conditions with which the Applicant does not agree, the BOCC must give the Applicant 22
time to consider the conditions, and vote at a later date. 23
Chair Rich said she wants to know if there are items within the conditions that the BOCC 24
cannot accept, and focus the discussion on these topics. 25
Commissioner Dorosin said the building height discussion is important, but precise 26
decisions need to be made, and feedback given. 27
Commissioner Greene asked is Commissioner Dorosin is asking for a straw vote on 28
each issue. 29
Commissioner Dorosin said not a straw vote, but if the Applicant proposes a condition 30
either accept, propose an alternative, and move on. 31
Commissioner Greene agreed, and said not all issues need intimate discussion. She 32
said the building height and truck traffic are big issues, but the entire proposal is a package as a 33
whole, and she would vote no as the proposal currently stands. She said she would like it to 34
come back later. 35
Commissioner Dorosin asked if Commissioner Greene could define later. 36
Commissioner Greene said she would like to go through each of the big issues: building 37
height, traffic, buffers, etc. 38
Michael Harvey said staff is looking to get direction so that it can work with the Applicant. 39
He said he needs some suggested conditions, and universal consensus is not necessary. He 40
said specifics are necessary, so that he can work with the Applicant to get the BOCC what it 41
wants. 42
Commissioner Bedford said the BOCC can tackle the more urgent conditions, but it is 43
important to go through every page so that the BOCC can vote yes or no. 44
Commissioner McKee said he appreciates the comments, and he has specific numbers 45
and conditions that he will, or will not, agree to, on about 10 different items. 46
Commissioner McKee proposed that the building height on Davis Road be 40 feet, from 47
the top of the building pad to the highest structural component on the front façade. 48
Commissioner Marcoplos said if the building is 100 feet off the road with varying 49
topography, he said 40 feet with a 4-6 foot parapet will not make a difference. He said the 50
33
parapet will make the building more visually appealing, and it is not that big a deal. He said he 1
supports 40-45 feet, including the parapet. 2
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the scale of the building. She said she 3
wants it to blend in with the surrounding landscape and road scape. She said she wants the 4
conversation to move forward, and she is totally against a service road coming to Davis Road. 5
Chair Rich said she agrees with Commissioner Marcoplos, and thinks the parapet is 6
important. She said if an opaque buffer can be put in place it would be good. 7
Commissioner McKee said a 40-foot limit does not mean that solar arrays and HVAC 8
equipment should be seen, but rather the parapet is included in the 40 feet. 9
Michael Harvey said he would look at these two suggestions with the Applicant. 10
Chair Rich said to move onto the discussion of Davis Road. 11
Commissioner Dorosin summarized the current proposal. 12
Michael Birch said he would like to explain what the Applicant anticipates for this part of 13
the plan. He introduced his colleague Frank Csapo. 14
Frank Csapo said there is a misconception on what is being proposed. He said great 15
concerns were raised at the public meeting about access to Davis Road, and in response, the 16
Applicant met with staff to issue a revised TIA, in which all the traffic is routed through the 17
service road to old 86. He said NCDOT approved this change. He said the approval received 18
by NCDOT is based on the trip generation report. He said no alternate access points will be 19
needed. He said the Applicant preserved a left out, and right in traffic pattern. He said access 20
to Davis Rd can be restricted to emergency vehicles only, if the BOCC so desires. 21
Chair Rich said the written condition in front of her does not line up with what was just 22
said. 23
Frank Csapo said the Applicant thought the BOCC was amenable to small vans and light 24
traffic on Davis Road. He said if this is not accurate, the BOCC can prohibit those types of 25
vehicles on Davis Road as well. 26
Commissioner McKee clarified that the Developer will accept a condition that states 27
there will be no access to Davis Road, except for emergency vehicles. 28
Frank Csapo said that is correct. 29
Commissioner McKee asked if that would remove item n, o, and p from page 55. 30
Frank Csapo said yes. 31
Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason these items were included in the first 32
place. 33
Frank Csapo said it was his understanding that the BOCC was open to car and light van 34
traffic on Davis Road. He said if this was a misunderstanding he apologizes, and the BOCC 35
can limit all traffic on Davis Road if it so chooses. 36
Commissioner Dorosin said the Developer has agreed to eliminate the access to Davis 37
Road, and that is a positive step, which addresses many concerns. He said to instruct staff to 38
make that change, and if it is important to leave in emergency vehicles in writing, then do so. 39
Commissioner McKee agreed. 40
Frank Csapo agreed. 41
Commissioner Price asked if a road will still be cut. 42
Frank Csapo said yes, but it will be access controlled. He said the Developer can work 43
with Emergency Services on what is favorable. 44
Commissioner Bedford asked if there is a reason the BOCC has not known about the 45
NCDOT approval prior to tonight. 46
Frank Csapo said the supplemental TIA was submitted to NCDOT about 10 days ago. 47
He said congestion management issued a recommendation for approval of a fully functional 48
signal intersection at service road and old 86. He said based on that recommendation, the 49
developer was issued an approval of the redesign of this intersection on Friday afternoon. 50
Commissioner Bedford asked if item p on page 55 will be deleted. 51
34
Frank Csapo said yes. 1
Commissioner Bedford asked if Craig Benedict, Planning Director, could explain why the 2
BOCC did not receive communication about the changes from NCDOT. 3
Craig Benedict said NCDOT gave its response late last week, but the agenda was out 4
already. He said item p says the amount of trips generated can be serviced by the suggested 5
improvements, and if this was ever exceeded then a midblock point would be needed, and p 6
was included to address this. 7
Commissioner Bedford said it sounds like the Planning Department wants to keep item 8
p, and she is unclear how to define when conditions would be exceeded. 9
Frank Csapo said the traffic generation study that was approved contemplated a build up 10
to 2.4 million square feet, and said this information could be included as a trigger point for 11
further review. 12
Michael Harvey said that language is already in the document. 13
Commissioner Bedford asked if staff would think through this wording, and see if any 14
changes are needed. She said overall this is good news, but she does not understand why she 15
is only just hearing it. 16
Chair Rich said one reason is that information needs to be shared publicly. 17
Commissioner Greene said items m, n, o, and p are no longer necessary. She thanked 18
the Applicant for taking all traffic off of Davis Road. 19
Commissioner McKee also expressed thanks for the efforts made to take traffic off of 20
Davis Road. He asked if a fully signalized intersection will allow for right and left turns 21
immediately. 22
Frank Csapo said yes. 23
Commissioner McKee said developing a fully signalized intersection will require right of 24
way that does not currently exist. He asked if the Developer had conversations with NCDOT 25
about how to obtain this access. 26
Frank Csapo said the NCDOT approval indicates that there is no funding at NCDOT to 27
secure the right of way, and the responsibility would fall to the Developer. He said in response 28
to that, the Developer has reached out to pertinent property owners and is having ongoing 29
dialogue with them. 30
Commissioner McKee said he was made aware of the amount that was offered for the 31
required land, and he considers it a pittance. 32
Frank Csapo disagreed, and said the Developer is spending more than $5 million to 33
bring water and sewer to the area, and $3 million to bring a fully signalized intersection, which 34
will bring great investment to the area and increase in property values. 35
Commissioner McKee said he is glad that the Developer has been able to make these 36
advances with the plan. 37
Commissioner Bedford asked if the Developer will be required to make improvements 38
where Davis Road and Old 86 meet. 39
Frank Csapo said no. 40
Commissioner Price asked if the service road will be widened to accommodate traffic, 41
and if the easements are required to do so. 42
Frank Csapo said yes. 43
Commissioner Price asked if most traffic can be directed to the left. 44
Frank Csapo said the traffic cannot be controlled, but the intersection is immediately 45
adjacent to the I-40 on ramp, and it seems only local traffic will go to the right. 46
Commissioner Price said trucks may be tired of waiting to turn left, and there may 47
additional build out in the area due to the installation of public water and sewer. 48
Chair Rich said the next issue to consider is the parking area. 49
Commissioner Greene said she would oppose barbed wire in any part of the property. 50
Frank Csapo said there will be no barbed wire. 51
35
Frank Csapo said this will be a master plan development, and there will be an 1
architectural review committee that will review all plans and aesthetics. 2
Michael Harvey said it will still be hard to enforce these conditions. He said an 3
architectural committee means nothing to him. 4
Commissioner Greene said perhaps it should not be included at all. 5
Craig Benedict said that would be his opinion as well. 6
Michael Harvey said there are architectural design standards in the Orange County 7
UDO, and the Applicant was recommended to address similar compliance points. He said this 8
does some of that, but the language does not allow him to definitively allow for violations. 9
Commissioner Dorosin asked if those standards can be imported here to make 10
determinations. 11
Michael Harvey said that was a suggestion, and the conditions here were taken from the 12
application narrative. He said the Applicant took its lead from Settlers Point, but there is some 13
specificity missing here that was in Settlers Point. 14
Chair Rich asked if the language from the UDO could be added here. 15
Michael Harvey said he will work with the Applicant to attempt to improve the language. 16
Commissioner Price said “harmonious and compatible” is vague and can mean different 17
things to different people. She said she would like more specificity to aid with enforcement. 18
Frank Csapo said there are photographic examples in the application materials of these 19
items. 20
Chair Rich said the next item is the parking lot layout. 21
Michael Harvey said the application does not address all the possible permitted land 22
uses, and if more parking would be needed. 23
Frank Csapo said the Applicant has addressed this issue, and there is typically too many 24
parking spaces made with large development. He said these spaces will accommodate the use. 25
Commissioner Greene said this answer makes sense to her. She asked if “general 26
office use” can be explained. 27
Frank Csapo said a typical warehouse building has 5% office occupied space, and that 28
portion will be built out as office area. He said office square footage would apply to that area, 29
and industrial square footage would apply to the rest of the open area. 30
Commissioner Price asked if the Developer knows the breakdown of the property use 31
percentages. 32
Frank Csapo said no, but the office space will be minimal. 33
Chair Rich said she hears a difference between the Developer and staff’s description. 34
Michael Harvey said this is what the Applicant has proposed, and he has no comfort 35
level on this proposal. 36
Commissioner Marcoplos said he would favor less parking wherever possible, and to 37
trust the Developer on this. 38
Chair Rich said the next issues are setbacks and buffers. 39
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about setbacks. She said Orange County 40
already has setback standards, based on a variety of reasons, and asked if the Applicant could 41
justify its reduction of these setbacks. 42
Frank Csapo put a map on the screen, and said he does not agree that the Applicant is 43
not complying with County buffers, as there is a 100 foot building buffer around the south and 44
west boundaries of the property. He said there are logistical issues associated with the property 45
that are immutable boundaries that are fixed, and around which the Applicant must work. He 46
said there is a flood plain, a Duke power easement, and an additional County boundary. He 47
said given these immutable objects the project must adjust accordingly. 48
Commissioner Price said she wants to preserve the 100-foot no build buffer. 49
Frank Csapo said there are no adjacent property owners that have houses near the 50
property. He said there is a 100-foot building buffer all the way around, and a no build 50-foot 51
36
buffer. He said this is necessary due to the immutable boundaries on numerous sides of the 1
property, bisecting north, south, east and west. He said for buildings to be functional to the 2
marketplace, there are certain dimensions that must be available. He said bay depths mean 3
something, and these buffers are what the Developer can offer given the physical needs of the 4
buildings. 5
Commissioner Price said the Developer could reduce the number of buildings to allow 6
for more buffer. 7
Frank Csapo said reducing the number of buildings would make the project unviable 8
economically, due to the amount of investment that must be made up front to develop the site. 9
Chair Rich asked if Michael Harvey could state the requirements of the County’s UDO. 10
Michael Harvey said if this parcel were zoned economic development – Hillsborough, 11
there would be a 100-foot perimeter buffer. He said this is required for the edge of the 12
economic development districts. He said the BOCC required a more restrictive buffer of 125 13
feet along the southern and western borders for Settlers Point. He said the Applicant is 14
proposing a 50-foot land use buffer along the southern and western property lines, and a 100-15
foot building setback. 16
Commissioner Marcoplos said 50 feet from one’s property to a road is not very much, 17
and he wondered if there could be a 65-foot buffer with dense vegetative plantings. 18
Frank Csapo said the dimensional request will be hard to accommodate, but dense 19
plantings are achievable. He said within the 50 feet, the Developer can increase the amount of 20
vegetative buffer. 21
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is uncomfortable with that proposal. 22
Chair Rich agreed. She said she remembers this discussion with Settler’s Point, where 23
dense plantings were encouraged, but the larger buffer also existed. 24
Commissioner Greene also agreed. 25
Commissioner Price said the buffer issue goes along with open space, which the 26
Developer is reducing to 25% from the required 30%. 27
Frank Csapo said there is 32% open space on the plan. 28
Michael Harvey said all documents he has reviewed have shown 25%. 29
Frank Csapo said 30% open space can be accommodated. 30
Commissioner Greene asked if the open space includes storm water basins, as she 31
would hope not. 32
Frank Csapo said under the UDO it is included. 33
Commissioner Greene asked if this is where the discrepancy is occurring between the 34
Applicant and County staff. 35
Frank Csapo said no, the paperwork that staff has seen says at least 25%, but the actual 36
plan that the Developer is working with is 32%. 37
Commissioner Greene asked if there can be any assurance that the storm water basins 38
will look like ponds, or actual open space. 39
Frank Csapo said he is unsure of any standard to apply there, but will work with staff to 40
alleviate BOCC concerns. 41
Commissioner Price asked if that will be a retention pond or a draining pond. 42
Frank Csapo said wet ponds. 43
Chair Rich said there is no agreement on the buffers. 44
45
Craig Benedict said the Applicant has agreed to put what is typically in 150 feet into 100 46
feet in a denser manner and linear fashion. He said the UDO has a 75-foot buffer requirement, 47
with specifics about trees. He said this could be compressed to a 50-foot buffer with dense, 48
evergreen plantings. 49
Frank Csapo said this would be acceptable. 50
Chair Rich asked if this falls in line with the UDO. 51
37
Craig said the UDO has multiple buffers, with varied plantings. He said the 50-foot 1
buffer could have the quantity of plantings that would be found in a 75-foot buffer. He said the 2
75-foot buffer contains more evergreens. He said this would be an alternate design option. 3
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there was a way to measure the densification. 4
Craig Benedict said yes, there is a certain amount of trees in each size of buffer. He 5
said the same amount of trees that would go in a 75-foot wide area would be compressed into a 6
50-foot wide area. 7
Commissioner Marcoplos said that may be an option, as long as the outcome could be 8
measurable. 9
Craig Benedict said it is quantifiable. 10
Commissioner Greene said it is quantifiable while the trees are living, but those trees will 11
change, and it is not the same as a 100-foot buffer. 12
Craig Benedict said the project has a requirement to maintain buffers, and have trees 13
grow from initial planting to mature heights. He said the County monitors this. 14
Commissioner Greene asked who covers this expense. 15
Craig Benedict said it is an ongoing inspection process done by the County, and if non-16
compliance is found, the County sends a letter to the Developer for correction. 17
Chair Rich said she has a problem with the buffers, and would like to see an option that 18
includes the 100-foot buffer on the western and southern property lines. 19
Commissioner Price agreed. 20
Commissioner Greene agreed. 21
Commissioner Marcoplos agreed. 22
Commissioner McKee said he thinks there needs to be further discussion, as he 23
envisions the 50-foot buffer on the west and the south being all parking lots. He said he does 24
not think a 100-foot buffer would greatly impinge on the building. 25
Chair Rich said Craig Benedict has proposed a solution, but it is not what the County 26
expects. She asked if Staff could work with the Developer on this issue. 27
Commissioner Dorosin said it is important to consider the trade-offs, and if there could 28
be less parking over, or a taller building at some point, etc. He said it is important to be as 29
creative as possible. 30
Chair Rich agreed. 31
Commissioner Marcoplos agreed as well. He asked if there is some value to allow taller 32
buildings on the north side/interstate side. 33
Commissioner McKee expressed his appreciation to the Developer for revising the 34
delivery traffic out on Davis Road. He said the CZ process involves working within the County’s 35
expectations and the Developer’s needs. He said he would be willing to discuss the issue of 36
building heights in order to maintain the buffers. 37
Chair Rich said the next issue was land uses. 38
Michael Harvey said he has a stylistic concern about the project, but not about any of the 39
uses. He said he needs a head nod from the BOCC that the listed uses are acceptable. He 40
said most of the uses are listed in Settlers Point. 41
Commissioner Price asked if dry cleaning is really allowed, as they often need 42
chemicals. 43
Michael Harvey said chemicals do not have to be used, and it is up to the operator. He 44
said he does not see a problem with it. 45
The Board agreed by consensus about the list of uses. 46
Commissioner Bedford referred to page 58 and the LED lightning, and the word 47
“substantially”. 48
Frank Csapo said a different style of lighting is required in certain laboratory formats, 49
and this wording is present to accommodate such unique situations. 50
38
Commissioner Bedford said the language could simply be amended to say LED lighting 1
will be used except for unique situations where it is not possible to do so. 2
Frank Csapo agreed. 3
Commissioner Marcoplos said he would like more information on the Cates Creek 4
natural area. He asked if County environmental staff could provide a summary of the issues. 5
Frank Csapo said he is unsure what information can be provided, as the project has no 6
impact on Cates Creek. He said storm water control is in place, along with rain gardens. 7
Commissioner Marcoplos said he wants to hear from County staff in this issue, not the 8
Developer. 9
Michael Harvey said the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation 10
(DEAPR) staff sent a memorandum to the BOCC. He confirmed that no portion of the property 11
contains any part of Cates Creek. 12
Commissioner Greene suggested the following language for the LED lighting: “LED 13
lighting will be used unless LED lighting is not compatible with the associated use.” 14
Frank Csapo agreed. 15
Commissioner Greene referred to page 8 section 5, performance standards, and said 16
she would prefer vehicles not be allowed to park in front of trash and recycling receptacles. 17
Frank Csapo agreed. He returned to the LED lighting issue, and said he agrees with 18
Commissioner Greene’s wording, but would like to include language for successor technology in 19
case LED lighting is replaced by something more efficient. 20
Commissioner Greene agreed. 21
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the environmental impact. She said 22
County staff says there will be no impact, but local environmental agencies say otherwise. She 23
said she would like those reports to be taken into consideration and a full report be given to the 24
BOCC. 25
Frank Csapo said these agencies did not submit any professional reports, but rather just 26
opinions. He said the Developer hired Kimley Horn who did a full analysis, and found no 27
environmental concerns. He said there are plenty of professional reports to be reviewed on this 28
issue. 29
Commissioner Price said whether the Developer considers these agencies professional 30
or not, she respects them and the work of the Eno River Association. She asked if County staff 31
could listen to these agencies, and give a report back to the BOCC. 32
33
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 34
consider discussing the revised Statement of Consistency and the Ordinance Amending the 35
Zoning Atlas at the October 20th, 2020 BOCC Virtual Business Meeting. 36
37
Roll call ensued. 38
39
VOTE: UNANMIOUS 40
41
7. Reports 42
NONE 43
44
45
8. Consent Agenda 46
47
Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 48
None removed 49
50
Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 51
39
1
2
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to 3
approve the consent agenda. 4
5
Roll call ensued. 6
7
VOTE: UNANMIOUS 8
9
a. Minutes 10
The Board approved the draft minutes from the September 1, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting as 11
submitted by the Interim Clerk to the Board. 12
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds 13
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle 14
property tax values for three taxpayers with a total of three bills that will result in a reduction of 15
revenue in accordance with NCGS. 16
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds 17
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax 18
values for fifteen taxpayers with a total of twenty-six bills that will result in a reduction of revenue 19
in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. 20
d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion 21
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve eleven untimely 22
applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for twelve bills for the 2020 tax 23
year. 24
e. Resolution Authorizing Exchange of Property for the Sheriff’s Office 25
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing exchange of 26
weapons for credit at P.F. Custom Guns and authorized the Chair to sign. 27
f. Budget Amendment for the County Funding of 800 Hot Spots to Orange County 28
Schools 29
The Board approved a Budget Amendment in the amount of $120,000 to fund 800 Hots Spots 30
for Orange County Schools (OCS) at a cost of $150 each. 31
g. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive 32
Transportation Plan Amendment 33
The Board approved a list of Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) 34
Amendments in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC 35
MPO) and submitted to the DCHC MPO for inclusion in its CTP Amendment. 36
h. Advisory Boards and Commissions – Appointments 37
The Board approved the Advisory Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and 38
discussed during the September 10, 2020 Work Session. 39
i. Approval of Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2021 40
The Board approved the meeting schedule for the Board of County Commissioners for calendar 41
year 2021. 42
j. Approval of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Travel Policies and 43
Procedures 44
The Board approved the County Commissioner Travel Policy to establish appropriate guidelines 45
for travel and transportation required of elected officials conducting business for Orange County. 46
k. Approve Contract for Building Commissioning Services of Northern Campus Project 47
The Board authorized the County Manager to execute a contract upon review by the County 48
Attorney, between Orange County and Facilities Dynamics Engineering to perform building 49
commissioning services for the Northern Campus construction project. 50
l. Orange County Public Transportation Electric Bus and Charging Station Purchase 51
40
The Board approved an Agreement with GILLIG LLC of Hayward, California in the amount not-1
to-exceed $1,117,000 for the purchase and installation of a 40 foot electric bus and charging 2
station; and authorized the County Manager to sign the agreement upon County Attorney review 3
and to sign any change orders up to the Project Budget. 4
m. Amendment to Orange County Board of Commissioners Advisory Board Policy 5
Regarding Elected Officials 6
The Board voted to amend the Orange County Advisory Board Policy so that elected 7
government officials may not serve on advisory boards. 8
9
9. County Manager’s Report 10
Bonnie Hammersley said there is work session on October 8th, and highlighted the 11
topics for discussion. 12
13
10. County Attorney’s Report 14
NONE 15
16
11. *Appointments 17
NONE 18
19
12. Information Items 20
21
September 15, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 22
Tax Collector’s Report – Numerical Analysis 23
Tax Collector’s Report – Measure of Enforced Collections 24
Tax Assessor's Report – Releases/Refunds under $100 25
Memorandum - Racial Equity Progress Report 26
Memorandum - 2016 School Bond Projects 27
28
13. Closed Session 29
NONE 30
31
14. Adjournment 32
33
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 34
adjourn the meeting. 35
36
VOTE: UNANMIOUS 37
38
The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. 39
40
41
Penny Rich, Chair 42
43
44
Allen Coleman 45
Assistant Deputy Clerk 46
47
Submitted for Approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board 48
1
ATTACHMENT 3 1
2
DRAFT 3
MINUTES 4
ORANGE COUNTY 5
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6
VIRTUAL WORK SESSION 7
OCTOBER 8, 2020 8
7:00 p.m. 9
10
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Work Session on Thursday, 11
October 8, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 12
13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and 14
Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Mark 15
Marcoplos 16
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE 17
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 18
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 19
Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, and Assistant Deputy Clerk II Allen 20
Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below.) 21
22
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 23
Chair Rich asked John Roberts if a roll call was needed. 24
John Roberts said yes. 25
Chair Rich proceeded with roll call, and said Commissioner Greene would be late. 26
27
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting a Virtual Work 28
Session on Thursday, October 8, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated in 29
the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and listen 30
to the meeting via live streaming video at http://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos 31
and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 32
33
34
1. Alcohol Beverage and Control Board Voting Membership and Financial Statement 35
Analysis 36
37
John Roberts reviewed the following item: 38
39
PURPOSE: 40
To provide: 41
1) An update on the BOCC commissioner being an ABC voting member 42
2) A financial analysis of the ABC Board revenue, profitability and funding capacity 43
44
BACKGROUND: 45
LEGAL – Voting Member Information 46
47
The BOCC has expressed interest in having the commissioner appointee to the ABC Board be 48
a voting member rather than a non-voting liaison. There are multiple options available to the 49
BOCC if the BOCC is dissatisfied with some aspect of ABC operations or governance or if the 50
BOCC simply believes changes should be made for other reasons. 1) Change the Chair. The 51
2
BOCC has full authority to appoint the Chair. 2) Change or reduce salaries. Again full authority 1
to do so rests with the BOCC. 3) Adopt standards of conduct for ABC board members. 4) 2
Appoint commissioners or senior county employees to the ABC board. Both have been done by 3
counties in North Carolina. This fourth option is further explored below. 4
5
As authorized by statute the BOCC appoints both the members and the Chair of the ABC Board 6
and members serve three-year terms. Due to the fact that terms are for three years it may be 7
administratively best to appoint a commissioner who has at least three years left in office. 8
However, this is not absolutely necessary because vacancies are filled by the BOCC to 9
complete the term of the member who created the vacancy and should a commissioner leave 10
office another could be appointed to fill the ABC role for the duration of the original appointee’s 11
term. 12
13
There may be some concern about the prohibition of dual office holding if a commissioner is 14
appointed to the ABC board, however, so long as the appointment is ex officio the dual office 15
holding prohibition is not a concern. Under North Carolina law ex officio appointees have the 16
same rights and authority as any other appointee. Regarding the dual office non-issue North 17
Carolina General Statute §128-1.2 reads: 18
19
Ex officio service by county and city representatives and officials. Except when the 20
resolution of appointment provides otherwise, whenever the governing body of a county 21
or city appoints one of its own members or officials to another board or commission, the 22
individual so appointed is considered to be serving on the other board or commission as 23
a part of the individual's duties of office and shall not be considered to be serving in a 24
separate office. As used in this section, the ter "official" means (i) in the case of a 25
county, the county manager, acting county manager, interim county manager, county 26
attorney, finance officer, or clerk to the board and (ii) in the case of a city, the city 27
manager, acting city manager, interim city manager, city attorney, finance officer, city 28
clerk, or deputy clerk. As used in this section, the term "city" has the meaning provided 29
in G.S. 160A-1. 30
31
One important consideration in appointing a commissioner to the ABC board is the appointment 32
would create occasional conflicts of interest for the appointed commissioner. That commissioner 33
could not vote, and would have to be excused from voting, on ABC board members’ salaries, 34
the ABC board travel policy, or other items that could have a financial impact on the 35
commissioner. 36
37
There are two current ABC board members whose terms expire 6/30/21. According to the 38
Orange County advisory board webpage Patrick Burns is serving the first of two potential terms 39
and Jane Cousins is serving the second of two terms. Should the BOCC determine to appoint 40
one, or more, of its own members to an ABC board position one of these two positions is most 41
realistic for the appointment because outright removal of ABC members may only be for cause. 42
Of the remaining members’ terms one expires in 2022 and two expire in 2023. 43
44
FINANCIAL- Revenue, Profitability and Funding Capacity 45
46
The Chair requested a financial statement analysis of the ABC Board to determine additional 47
funding capacity in view of the ABC Board not approving the County’s FY 2020-21 funding 48
request for the Drug Treatment Court program. The Drug Treatment program was funded at 49
$25,000 and not the requested $32,500. The Vice-Chair requested a listing of distributions to 50
sub-recipients for FY 2019-20 (Attachment 1). 51
3
1
The following are key financial and revenue metrics from the ABC FY 2019-20 Financial Audit. 2
3
ABC Key Financial metrics include: 4
5
Net position increased by 9.27% 6
Total Sales increased 12.47% 7
Retail liquor sales increased 22.48% 8
Working capital increased 28.8% 9
10
Table 1 below indicates the historical year trend in ABC profits before distribution and 11
distribution to sub-recipients. As noted on Table 1 below, the ABC distribution as a percent of 12
profits has increased from 39% in FY 2014-15 to 65% in FY 2019-20. These increases resulted 13
from BOCC Petitions and Benchmarking Analyses (Attachments 2 and 3). 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Table 2 below is an updated Benchmarking Analysis as of June 30, 2019 comparing the Orange 29
County ABC Board distribution to sub-recipients as a percent of profit which was 64%. The five 30
counties of Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Wake and Mecklenburg have an average distribution 31
as percent of profit of 70%. 32
33
Based on the ABC financial and sales performance and the Table 2 comparison of other County 34
ABC Board distributions, the County’s Drug Treatment funding request of $32,500 for the 35
Criminal Justice Resource Department does appear reasonable. A copy of this financial 36
analysis has been provided to the ABC General Manager and Finance Director in order to allow 37
ABC management to respond. Attachment 4 represents the ABC response. 38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
4
1
2
3
RECOMMENDATION(S): 4
The Manager recommended the Board accept this as an information item for further discussion. 5
6
Commissioner Dorosin said he has expressed his feelings in prior meetings, but he does 7
not understand the value of a Commissioner being present on the ABC Board, without being a 8
voting member. He said Commissioners are excluded from closed sessions, ABC Board items, 9
and other items. He said a Commissioner should have the same permissions and authority as 10
other ABC Board members. 11
Commissioner Price said she thought it says somewhere in state law that a 12
Commissioner cannot vote on a Board. 13
John Roberts said he is not aware of anything that prohibits Commissioners from voting. 14
He said he would love to see any information that Commissioners may have. 15
Commissioner Price said a Commissioner is currently serving, and asked if there is a 16
reason this person does not already have voting authority. She asked if there is a reason the 17
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) must wait for current ABC Board members to roll off, 18
prior to appointing new members. 19
John Roberts said he is not familiar with how the ABC Board was originally structured, or 20
why the ABC Board Commissioner representative does not have a vote. He said the BOCC 21
would need to wait to appoint new members as ABC members can only be removed for cause, 22
such as malfeasance. 23
Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason why the ABC Board Commissioner liaison 24
cannot vote currently. 25
John Roberts said the board is not set up that way, and is a 5-member board. He said 26
state statute says a 5-member board cannot be increased or decreased, other than by a 27
legislative act. 28
Commissioner Dorosin said the abstract was very good. He asked if the ABC Board 29
members get paid a salary, and if a Commissioner were a voting member, would he/she also 30
receive a salary. 31
John Roberts said to his knowledge the ABC Board members receive a stipend. He said 32
an appointed Commissioner would be eligible for that stipend, and thus would not be allowed to 33
vote on issues relating to that stipend, due to his/her position as a County Commissioner. 34
35
Commissioner Greene joined the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 36
37
Chair Rich said the GoTriangle board also receives a stipend. 38
Commissioner Bedford said she was a liaison on the Orange County Partnership for 39
Young Children. She said she is required to recuse herself when this board is voting on the 40
allocation of state dollars that will financially benefit the County. She asked if the ABC Board 41
would have similar restrictions. 42
John Roberts said this may be part of the non-profit’s bylaws, and would not be 43
applicable to a Commissioner individually as he/she is not benefiting personally from the vote. 44
Chair Rich said the BOCC will choose boards in December, and asked if the 45
Commissioner that chooses the ABC Board would become the voting member when slots 46
become available in 2021. 47
John Roberts said the liaison position would go away, and a voting member would be 48
installed, but the BOCC could change the Commissioner who fills each role, if it so desires. 49
Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts if he recommends this change be made. 50
5
John Roberts said he does not have an opinion on this item, due to there not being any 1
concerns about existing ABC board members. He said by changing this structure it would allow 2
the Board to have more authority, and enable the BOCC to have representation in ABC financial 3
and personnel decisions. 4
Commissioner McKee said he does not hear of any concerns with the current ABC 5
board members, and the BOCC goes to great lengths to get the community involved. He said 6
he has served as the liaison to the ABC Board twice, and found the members to be very 7
responsive to any input that he gave. He said he is not sure how this change would help the 8
BOCC. 9
Commissioner Price said when she served on the Board she thought about this change, 10
but realized that the BOCC appoints the other five members and the Chair of the ABC Board. 11
She said those appointees represent the BOCC, and it is okay if the Commissioner liaison does 12
not have a vote. 13
Commissioner Dorosin said it is important for the BOCC to have a vote on the Board. 14
He said having a direct voice in decision-making is critical. He said there has always been 15
heavy representation from law enforcement on the ABC Board. He said the ABC Board 16
generates a lot of revenue, and is involved with social services programs about which the 17
BOCC is concerned. He said having an equal vote is important. 18
Commissioner Rich said there are also other boards on which the BOCC has a vote, 19
such as the Visitors Bureau, Home Trust, GoTriangle, etc. 20
Commissioner Bedford said both she and Commissioner Greene were on a seminar 21
today about community engagement, and the timing was perfect for this agenda item. She said 22
the discussion focused on the value of broad community participation, with which she strongly 23
agrees. She said leadership should be spread out, diluted, and shared with the community. 24
She said prior to becoming a Commissioner, she served on the ABC Board. She said she could 25
have continued serving, but felt it was very much a conflict of interest and thus resigned once 26
elected a Commissioner. She referred to the chart on Table 2, and said 17% is spent on law 27
enforcement, but also 26% on non-profits. She said the ABC Board pays a living wage, which 28
reduces its profit, and gives 64% of profit away. She said this could be higher, but given 29
COVID, there may not have been as much revenue as normal, and it is wise to be conservative. 30
She said the ABC Board has a rigorous capital improvement plan in place. She said if a funding 31
request is needed, it should be made, but otherwise she would prefer to leave this board alone. 32
Commissioner Greene asked if the conflict of interest could be clarified. 33
Chair Rich said the possible conflict of interest is because the ABC Board members 34
receive a stipend, and BOCC members should not vote of adjusting the stipend. 35
Commissioner Price said she could go either way. She said the difference with the ABC 36
Board is that the Commissioners appoint each member to the ABC Board, as well as the chair, 37
as opposed to other boards where Commissioners serve and have a vote, but do not select the 38
other board members. She said there must be five members, and she does not want to remove 39
any of the current ABC Board members. 40
Commissioner Dorosin said having one seat as a voting member would not eliminate 41
participatory democracy. He said he does not see any issues of malfeasance, but does find the 42
ABC Board to be very dependent on the staff. He said he heard a lot of grievances from ABC 43
employees. He said having a Commissioner, as a voting member, is important as the liaison 44
only has a power of persuasion. He said he would not recommend removing the current 45
incumbent, but following John Roberts’ comments to replace a member once their term is over. 46
Chair Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. She said this item can come to a 47
business meeting for a vote. 48
Commissioner Bedford asked if the ABC Board’s opinion on this matter could be sought. 49
Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Bedford. 50
6
Commissioner Marcoplos said he supports voting yes to having a voting member on the 1
ABC Board. He said influence in the votes is one thing, but the BOCC must also be fully 2
informed on all matters of this board. 3
John Roberts said he would contact the Executive Director for comments, and feedback 4
from the ABC Board. 5
Commissioner Price asked if there are any questions on the request. 6
Commissioner Bedford said she would recommend making the request to the ABC 7
Board for additional funding, since the Executive Director says he is open to hearing it. 8
Bonnie Hammersley said staff will make that request. 9
Commissioner Price asked if there are any comments on the percentages. 10
Commissioner Dorosin said funding was increased a few years ago, and he raised it 11
again this year, due to record profits. He said he was told the increase was unlikely due to 12
paying the living wage and compression. He said there is a significant amount of revenue, and 13
perhaps the percentages should be increased. 14
Chair Rich asked if the percentage issue should be included in the agenda item. 15
Commissioner Dorosin said he would not want to delay the first issue. 16
Bonnie Hammersley said previously the ABC Board funding went into the General Fund, 17
although it was supposed to be identified for specific spending purposes. She said when the 18
Criminal Justice Resource Department (CJRD) was created, the County identified positions that 19
would be covered by ABC funds, including the Director of this Department. She said Cait 20
Fenhagen, CJRD Director, has identified initiatives and programs that are needed in her 21
department, and ABC funds have been requested to cover these items. She said the way the 22
money is spent must be identified, and staff can make requests for more funding if necessary. 23
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, said the audit was completed, and items were 24
not funded due to being cautious about COVID/recession fall out. 25
Commissioner Bedford asked if someone from the CJRD should be a voting member, as 26
opposed to a Commissioner. 27
Bonnie Hammersley said no, the voting member should be leadership, not staff. 28
Commissioner Price said it may be important to see where there are shortfalls. She said 29
thinking back there was some good ideas, like pretrial diversion, that could have benefitted from 30
funds. 31
Chair Rich asked if Bonnie Hammersley would proceed with an abstract for a future 32
BOCC meeting. 33
Commissioner Greene said she does not see a benefit of having fixed set allotment as 34
needs rise and fall each year. She said asking for what is needed is likely the best approach. 35
36
37
2. New Street Outreach and Harm Reduction Program 38
39
PURPOSE: 40
To share information about a new grant-funded county initiative supported through a 41
collaboration between the Criminal Justice Resource Department and the Housing and 42
Community Development Department with the Partnership to End Homelessness. 43
44
Caitlin Fenhagen, Criminal Justice Resources Director, and Corey Root, Homeless 45
Programs Manager, presented the following item: 46
47
BACKGROUND: 48
Since 2017, each year people with lived experience of homelessness, housing and homeless 49
service providers, the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness, and other community 50
stakeholders have identified a street outreach program as a gap in the Orange County 51
7
homeless service system (latest gap analysis update from 2019). Orange County has had 1
proven success with a street outreach program, connecting people living unsheltered with 2
services and housing, administered by Housing for New Hope -- this program ended when 3
Housing for New Hope ended work in Orange County in 2016. 4
5
In April 2019, over thirty community stakeholders from the criminal justice system, healthcare, 6
behavioral health system, and housing came together to participate in the Orange County 7
Sequential Intercept Mapping Workshop facilitated by the North Carolina Department of Health 8
and Human Services. A systems intercept map and Final Report were created (SIM Final 9
Report) and one of the identified community gaps that emerged from this process was the need 10
to divert people who are high utilizers of the courts, health care, and homelessness systems 11
from further criminal justice contact. 12
13
At the same time, stakeholders from the criminal justice system including law enforcement, the 14
District Attorney’s office, the Orange County Criminal Justice Resource Department (CJRD), 15
and criminal justice reform advocates are seeking to expand harm reduction deflection efforts in 16
Orange County. The current pre-arrest diversion program administered by the CJRD (OC PAD) 17
allows for law enforcement to divert first-offenders, but the OC PAD Advisory Committee, 18
District Attorney’s Office and all law enforcement chiefs have endorsed proceeding with a plan 19
to expand to a separate harm reduction track, which would allow for diversion for low level 20
offenses committed by individuals impacted by behavioral health concerns, homelessness and 21
prior criminal justice involvement. These high utilizers will be linked to appropriate resources 22
and will avoid the trauma of arrest, short-term incarceration and justice system involvement. 23
This harm reduction model of diversion moves away from ineffective punitive models and 24
unnecessary law enforcement response and increases public safety, enhances stability and 25
improves public health. 26
27
With the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020, homeless service providers reduced, 28
changed, and eliminated existing services to comply with social distancing and other response 29
recommendations. As a result, existing homeless service gaps, including street outreach, have 30
been exacerbated and deepened. On any given night, there are thirty to forty people living 31
unsheltered in Orange County. We are seeing these numbers increase during the COVID-19 32
response and recovery period. Research shows that street outreach programs that link people 33
with housing improve health outcomes and positively impact spending in other sections 34
including healthcare and the criminal justice system. In addition, recent national incidents of 35
police brutality have led to a new urgency in addressing systemic racism in policing and a 36
conversation about reinvestment in communities. Increasing therapeutic responses and 37
deflection from the criminal justice system, where it is safe and appropriate, have been widely 38
considered an evidence-based best practice for improved outcomes for individuals. Reimagining 39
law enforcement as one of the conduits for referring people in crisis to behavioral health 40
treatment experts and peer support is an important example of a reinvestment in impacted 41
communities. 42
43
In August 2020, the CJRD and Housing Departments were awarded an Emergency Solutions 44
CARES Act grant in the amount of $256,225.00 for the Street Outreach and Harm Reduction 45
Program. This one year of funding will support three positions to administer the program, which 46
is designed to connect people living unsheltered with housing, therapeutic interventions, critical 47
resources and ongoing peer support and case management. The program will also increase 48
harm reduction efforts and reduce unnecessary law enforcement response and justice 49
involvement, where deflection is appropriate. 50
51
8
RECOMMENDATION(S): 1
The Manager recommends the Board receive the presentation as information. 2
Caitlin Fenhagen made the following PowerPoint presentation: 3
4
Slide #1 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Slide #2 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Slide #3 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Corey Root presented the following slide: 45
46
Slide #4 47
48
49
50
51
9
1
2
Cait Fenhagen resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 3
4
Slide #5 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Slide #6 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Commissioner Price said this is an exciting report, but she is concerned about access to 33
housing, and asked if there is enough housing in Orange County to meet the needs. 34
Corey Root, Homeless Programs Manager, said more affordable housing is always 35
needed, but people are housed every month successfully. She said one of the gaps is 36
permanent supportive housing. She said rapid rehousing started in early April, and is showing 37
good results. She said the staff is good, and just keeps working. She said more people have 38
been housed this year than ever before. She said more housing programs are needed. 39
Caitlin Fenhagen said involvement in the criminal justice system creates a barrier to 40
accessing housing, especially ongoing criminal justice involvement. She said lack of housing 41
also leads to increased criminal justice involvement. She said both issues go hand in hand. 42
Commissioner Price said she hopes this program would be successful. She said having 43
housing inventory is important, but many people do not want affordable housing near them. 44
She said there are ample luxury apartments being built, and she wants to make sure the BOCC 45
is supporting the efforts referenced in this presentation. 46
Commissioner Dorosin said this program is very exciting. He said he remembered 47
hearing about this in the criminal justice committee. He referred to the gaps analysis and pre-48
COVID discussions, and asked if there is a natural next step in which gap to tackle. He asked if 49
the way to maximize the success of this program is to connect it to the next gap that will be 50
10
addressed. He said he is excited about this program, but would like a slightly zoomed out 1
perspective of the plan ahead. 2
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the $257,000 grant, and asked if it will all go to 3
staffing costs. He asked if there are other costs, and if there is additional grant funds available 4
to meet them. He said sustainability is vital. 5
Corey Root said there are a number of gaps that are exacerbated by COVID, so the next 6
logical step needs to come from the Partnership to End Homelessness (PTEH) leadership team. 7
She said more non-congregant shelter is greatly needed, and people experiencing 8
homelessness are at a higher risk for COVID. She said there are continued gaps around 9
housing resource programs and permanent support housing, which could be the next priority. 10
Commissioner Dorosin asked if non-congregant housing means single room housing. 11
Corey Root said the CDC recommends having individual rooms for those experiencing 12
homelessness. She said the County moved people into hotels in May, and FEMA is covering 13
those costs. 14
Caitlin Fenhagen said the majority of the grant is for salary and benefits, but $10,000 is 15
for program services such as transportation, emergency supplies, staff mileage, etc. 16
Commissioner Greene said this is great news. She said looking ahead this is a great 17
opportunity to redirect police funding; to do a community reset. She said this type of work 18
should not be law enforcement’s role, but rather social workers’. 19
Commissioner Marcoplos said this is really great work. He asked if homelessness is 20
rising, and if the coming year will make the crisis more acute. 21
Corey Root said the latest numbers are from January 2020. She said they count once 22
per year and it was 124, down from 132. She said numbers have been relatively flat over the 23
past decade. She said she expects numbers to rise in the coming year, but homelessness often 24
lags behind as an indicator by about 18-24 months. She said staff will keep a very close watch 25
on the numbers. She said having the street outreach team will provide real time data, especially 26
for those who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness. 27
Chair Rich said this is a great update. She said it will be a challenge to find ongoing 28
funding, but she has great confidence in the staff. 29
Caitlin Fenhagen said law enforcement partners have been particularly supportive of this 30
program, along with the downtown partners, and, of course, the Commissioners. 31
32
3. Government Alliance on Racial & Equity (“GARE”) Progress Report: Advancing 33
Racial Equity and Transforming Government Progress Report 34
35
PURPOSE: 36
A Progress Report on the work of the Orange County Government Alliance on Race & Equity 37
(“GARE”) staff cohort that has trained with other North Carolina jurisdictions since October 2019 38
to advance racial equity and create a plan to undo structural racism in County government. 39
40
BACKGROUND: 41
The Government Alliance and Race & Equity (“GARE”) is a national network of governments 42
working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. GARE features three 43
emphases: 44
Supporting jurisdictions that are at the forefront of work to advance racial equity. 45
Building pathways for new jurisdictions to begin doing racial equity work, including 46
cohorts of new jurisdictions. 47
Expanding and strengthening local and regional collaborations that are broadly inclusive 48
and focused on achieving racial equity. 49
50
11
In the 2019-20 budget, the Orange Board of Commissioners approved funds to support a team 1
of Orange County staff to be a part of a GARE North Carolina Learning Community of 2
government jurisdiction working to advance racial equity by addressing institution and structural 3
racism. Each jurisdiction made a one-year commitment to the learning process. 4
5
Each jurisdiction received tools and resources, including: 6
A racial equity training curriculum, to equip cohort participants to implement the training 7
with other employees; 8
A Racial Equity Tool to use in policy, practice, program and budget decisions; 9
Support to identify and launch pilot projects that demonstrate racial equity outcomes in 10
your jurisdiction; 11
A capacity building plan and organizational structure to institutionalize equity within their 12
jurisdiction; 13
Example policies and practices that helped advance racial equity; and 14
Support to develop a Racial Equity Action Plan 15
16
The Orange County team is comprised of fifteen diverse team members. Department Directors 17
were asked either to self-select or to select a member of their staff for the team. If through that 18
process the team was not filled, then co-leads selected county staff so that there was a diversity 19
of members and skills and departments on the team. The members of the team are: Annette 20
Moore, (Co-Lead), Human Rights and Relations, Nancy Coston, (Co-Lead), Social Services, 21
Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources, Melvyn Blackwell, Human Rights and Relations, Erica 22
Bryant, Child Support Enforcement, Brennan Bouma, Asset Management Services, Diogenes 23
DeLosSantos, Information Technology, Desmond Frierson, Criminal Justice Resource, Jennifer 24
Galassi, Sherriff’s Office, Ashley Hager, Food Council/County Manager’s Office, Sarah 25
Pickhardt, Emergency Services, Rachel Raper, Board of Elections, Juliet Sheridan, Health, 26
Quintana Stewart, Health, Robert Williams, Solid Waste. 27
28
The One Orange GARE team developed a mission statement: One Orange is a commitment by 29
Orange County leaders and staff to uncover and address implicit racial biases in our institution 30
to ensure that race can no longer be used to predict life outcomes in our community. 31
32
GARE Training has been intense. Members of the team have not only had to attend training but 33
also had meetings outside of the training, committee meetings, and additional homework. The 34
pandemic has been an obstacle in getting both the training and the racial equity plan completed 35
in September as we anticipated. 36
37
In May, with the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing protest, awareness of the need for 38
racial equity has grown exponentially around the Country. In June, the Health Director, Quintana 39
Stewart, declared structural racism a health crisis in Orange County. The Board of County 40
Commissioners also passed a resolution condemning the murder of George Floyd and 41
committing to dismantling structural and institutional racism in Orange County government and 42
throughout Orange County. The Board directed the Department of Human Rights and Relations 43
to lead the One Orange Racial Equity Team in developing a Racial Equity Plan using the 44
Government Alliance on Race and Equity Model to bring a first draft of the plan back to the 45
Board in September 2020. 46
47
Although the pandemic has impacted the work of the GARE core team, it has also created an 48
opportunity for us to reimagine how we move forward, advancing racial equity as a region. 49
Instead of looking at racial equity from a jurisdictional position, we believe we should be looking 50
12
at racial equity collaboratively both within the county and regionally. In Orange County, working 1
collaboratively, we could break down not only institutional racism but also systems racisms. 2
Other regional partners are Durham City, Durham County, Caswell County, Greensboro, and 3
Raleigh. 4
5
Several weeks ago, we met with Chapel Hill and Carrboro to discuss having one Countywide 6
Racial Equity Plan that would include different local community strategies. Now that 7
Hillsborough is a member of GARE, we have invited them to be a part of this collaboration. We 8
want leverage our shared resources with one another. This thinking would also carry over 9
regionally as well. We believe the attached Report outlines the steps that we will take to put a 10
comprehensive countywide racial equity plan together that is not only data-driven but keeps us 11
accountable for the work we are required to do. The other jurisdictions will be taking this Racial 12
Equity Progress Report to their Boards in October. 13
14
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board provide staff with feedback 15
on the Racial Equity Progress Report. 16
17
Annette Moore, Director of Human Rights and Relations made the following PowerPoint 18
presentation: 19
20
Slide #1 21
22
23 24
Slide #2 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Advancing Racial Equity and
Transforming Government
A Progress Report
Annette Moore, Human Rights and Relations
October 8, 2020
• “When race can no longer be used as to
predict life outcomes and outcomes for all
groups are improved.”
• The difference between racial equity and
equality is equity is about fairness, while
equality is about sameness.
What is Racial Equity?
2
13
1
2
Slide #3 3
4
5 6
Slide #4 7
8
9 10
Slide #5 11
12
13
14
15
16
Slide #6 17
18
• Normalizing conversations about race and
operationalizing strategizes for advancing racial equity
allows us to build systems that address income and
wealth inequity and recognize bias based on gender,
sexual orientation, ability, age, religion, and other
protected categories.
• Allows us to develop a framework, tools and resources
that apply to other areas of marginalization, recognizing
that different strategies will be necessary to achieve
equity in other areas.
Why Race?
3
• Allows us to move past looking at just
disparities to finding racialized systems
that are costly, depress outcomes, and life
chances for all groups.
• Systems that are failing communities of
color are failing us all by depressing life
chances and outcomes
Why Race?
4
• Support state and local jurisdiction that are
advancing racial equity by addressing
institutional and structural racism.
• Training staff to not only do the work but
also build internal capacity to undue
racism within their organization.
• Help expand and strengthen local and
regional collaboration that are inclusive
and focused on achieving racial equity.
Government Alliance on Race and
Equity (“GARE”)
5
14
1 Slide #7 2
3
4 5
Slide #8 6
7
8 9
Slide #9 10
11
12 13
Slide #10 14
15
GOAL -Build organizational capacity to advance racial
equity within the jurisdiction
A racial equity training curriculum, with cohort par cipants who
are equipped to implement the training with other employees,
A Racial Equity Tool to be used in policy, prac ce, program and budget
decisions,
Support for iden fying and launching pilot projects that
demonstrate where to start achieving racial equity outcomes in
each jurisdic on
A capacity building plan and organiza onal structure to
ins tu onalize equity within each jurisdic on,
Example policies and prac ces that help advance racial equity, and
Support on developing a Racial Equity Ac on Plan
North Carolina GARE Learning Community Cohort
6
• Orange, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham
City, Durham County, Raleigh, Caswell
County, Greensboro, and RMJJ
• Orange County Team -15 members.
• Team Name - “One Orange”
• Co-Lead - Nancy Coston
Annette Moore
North Carolina GARE Learning Community Cohort
Cohort Teams
7
Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources
Melvyn Blackwell, Human Rights and Relations
Erica Bryant, Child Support Enforcement
Brennan Bouma, Asset Management Services
Diogenes DeLosSantos, Information Technology
Desmond Frierson, Criminal Justice Resource
Jennifer Galassi, Sherriff’s Office
Sarah Pickhardt, Emergency Services
Rachel Raper, Board of Elections
Juliet Sheridan, Health
Quintana Stewart, Health
Robert Williams, Solid Waste
8
One Orange GARE Core Team
One Orange is a commitment by Orange
County leaders and staff to uncover and
address implicit racial biases in our
institution to ensure that race can no longer
be used to predict life outcomes in our
community.
One Orange Mission Statement
9
15
1 2
Slide #11 3
4
5 6
Slide #12 7
8
9 10
Slide #13 11
12
13 14
Slide #14 15
16
Strategy
Racial Equity Tool
Evaluation and
Accountability
Racial Equity Index
(Data)
Community Engagement
Training
Racial Equity as a Strategy for Change
10
• The Racial Equity Tool Commi ee will lay out
a process and a set of ques ons to guide the
development, implementa on and evalua on
of policies, ini a ves, programs, and budget
issues to address the impact of racial equity.
The racial equity tool will help align racial
equity goals with desired outcomes.
Racial Equity Tool
11
• Develop a plan to provide for meaningful
community engagement. Consider the current
and unlikely partners needed to accomplish the
organiza onal outcomes. Who are the decision
makers with whom you need to inform, consult,
or collaborate?
Community Engagement
12
• The use of data and metrics to track progress of County’s
racial equity ini a ves and to follow trends in racial
dispari es.
• Metrics will also facilitate the alignment of outputs with
outcomes and the coordina on of efforts across departments
and jurisdic ons.
• The Racial Equity Index will be a transparent public access to
data with built public data dashboards to help assess
ques ons of equity.
• The dashboards contained within the Index will include sub‐
county maps and key performance indicators (KPIs) to help
track essen al indicators and equity performance.
• Wherever possible these KPIs would be disaggregated by
geography, race/ethnicity, income, and gender.
Racial Equity Index (Data Collection)
13
16
1 2
Slide #15 3
4
5 6
7
Slide #16 8
9
10
11
12
Commissioner Bedford thanked Annette Moore, and said it would be beneficial to have 13
Racial Equity training for Commissioners at the January retreat. She said the work is very 14
important, and Commissioners should have that vocabulary. She said Triangle J Council of 15
Government is incorporating these topics into meetings, and encouraging participants to think 16
broadly. 17
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Town of Hillsborough is participating in the group of 18
governments in the cohort 19
Annette Moore said the Town of Hillsborough was not involved in the cohort, but is now 20
a member with GARE, and is included in the countywide initiative. She said this information will 21
be presented to the Town of Hillsborough on October 12, 2020, and she will attend this meeting. 22
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there was a timeline for the items that were mentioned, 23
and an arc over the next three months, six months, etc. 24
• The training commi ee will develop a plan to
provide training to policymakers, managers,
staff, boards and commission members, and
community partners to build capacity to
advance racial equity and to embed racial equity
into countywide systems.
Training
14
• The Evalua on and Accountability Commi ee will
develop an Evalua on Plan based on the principles of the
Results‐Based Accountability (“RBA”) framework.
• RBA is a na onal model and provides a disciplined,
data‐driven, decision‐making process to help local
governments take ac on to solve problems.
• An Evalua on Plan will help local governments apply
racial equity principles embedded into the Results‐Based
Accountability (RBA) methodology into Racial Equity
Ac on Plans.
Evaluation and Accountability
15
• Questions
Advancing Racial Equity
16
17
Annette Moore said the countywide team is focusing on creating timelines. She said she 1
wants to move faster than the rest of the group, and negotiations are underway. 2
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there will be interim updates like this evening. 3
Annette Moore said the racial equity plan should not take a long time. She said this is 4
just an outline of what needs to be done. She said it will take more time to complete the racial 5
equity index. She said they are currently working on the projects for GEAR specifically. 6
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the BOCC listening session about policing, and asked 7
if this fits into GARE in any way. 8
Annette Moore said the Human Relations Committee will be discussing this on Monday 9
night, and having a community conversation about what defunding the police means. She said 10
the GARE also seeks to provide racial equity training to boards and commissions. 11
12
Nancy Coston, Director of Social Services, joined the meeting at 8:44 p.m. 13
14
Nancy Coston said she was surprised that Social Service departments are not more 15
involved in these efforts, as it is appropriate and necessary for them to be involved. 16
Commissioner Price said she is excited about this work, and stressed the importance of 17
data collection and analysis. 18
Commissioner Greene said this was a really strong report. She asked if there are other 19
cities or government entities that have made significant changes, from whom Orange County 20
could learn. 21
Annette Moore said the premiere jurisdictions are King County (Seattle), Albuquerque, 22
Austin, and another place in Wisconsin. She said there are a few counties/states that may be 23
further along. She said she will pass along more information to the BOCC. 24
Commissioner Greene said it would be great to see this information. 25
Chair Rich said most Commissioners have received some training on racial equity. 26
27
4. Agricultural Preservation Board – Appointments Discussion 28
29
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommended that the Board discuss an 30
appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board. 31
32
A motion was by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to nominate 33
the Portia McKnight to the Agricultural Preservation Board 34
35
Roll Call ensued. 36
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37
38
5. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool – Appointment 39
40
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommended that the Board discuss an 41
appointment to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool. 42
43
Position #4 – To Be Determined 44
45
Chair Rich said the BOCC passed a policy that if one is on an elected board, one cannot 46
serve on an Advisory Board. She asked if that policy applies to this board, and to Bonnie 47
Hauser, who is a school board member and listed for this board. 48
John Roberts said the advisory board policy only applies to certain boards, and this 49
hearing panel is not covered. He said he is not sure if this would apply to Bonnie Hauser. 50
18
Chair Rich said there are two applicants for one position, but if Bonnie Hauser is no 1
longer allowed to serve, then there would be two positions, allowing both applicants to serve. 2
Commissioner Dorosin asked if either position needs to be filled by a Chapel Hill 3
resident. 4
Chair Rich said no. 5
Chair Rich said the position has been open since January, and the BOCC policy allows 6
a vacant position to be filled after 6 months. 7
Commissioner Price said she had the same question about Bonnie Hauser, but noted 8
that the new BOCC policy had no effective date. 9
John Roberts said the change is effective immediately. He said he has reviewed the 10
policy, and it does not apply to this hearing pool. 11
Chair Rich asked how the BOCC would like to proceed. 12
Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to get more information on why certain boards 13
are exempt from Advisory Board policy that was adopted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2020. He 14
said the BOCC may want to amend this new policy. 15
John Roberts said the reason some boards are not included is because it is an advisory 16
board policy, and this hearing pool is not an advisory board. 17
Chair Rich asked if Commissioner Dorosin wants to amend the advisory board policy. 18
Commissioner Dorosin said he would need more information from the Attorney. 19
John Roberts said he will have more information for the meeting on October 20, 2020. 20
Commissioner Price asked if task forces would fall under this policy as well. 21
John Roberts said the policy does not include taskforces, the election committee, or 22
other short-term committees. 23
Commissioner Price said the BOCC may want to consider this more in the future. 24
25
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to 26
nominate Stacy Shakenal to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool. 27
28
Roll call ensued. 29
30
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31
32
Commissioner Dorosin said he has a question for the Attorney that is covered as 33
privileged communication, and asked if he could send this question via email. 34
John Roberts said email is fine, but noted his response would have to go to the entire 35
BOCC, not just to Commissioner Dorosin. 36
Commissioner Dorosin said he understands, and it is completely fine to do so. 37
38
Adjournment 39
40
The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. 41
42
VOTE: 43
44
45
Penny Rich, Chair 46
47
Allen Coleman 48
Assistant Deputy Clerk II 49
50
Submitted for Approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board 51